Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply of the Minister to my Question No. 76 on yesterday's Order Paper, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot give notice now in relation to that.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Car Tests (Private Circuit)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development if he will seek power to establish a private circuit where cars can be tested at speeds in excess of 150 miles per hour, in view of the importance to exports of good performances in competitions abroad.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not think that there is a case for expenditure of public funds on facilities additional to those already available for testing cars designed for production.

Mr. Digby: Is it not important for the prestige of British cars, which are a very important export today, that some facilities should be provided so that the M.1 does not have to be used on future occasions? Cannot he say that some financial help could be given to the trade associations for this matter?

Mr. Price: I should like to reassure my hon. Friend first of all about the M.1. As he knows, my right hon. Friend

the Minister of Transport has received assurances from the S.M.M.T. that the M.1 will not in future be used for speed tests. With regard to my original Answer, I ought to tell my hon. Friend that this conclusion has been reached after informal talks with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the Motor Industry Research Association.

New Graving Dock, Greenock

Miss Harvie Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development (1) in making a grant under the Local Employment Act, what information he received as to the size of the ships that can be repaired in the new graving dock at Greenock, and the extent to which similar facilities are available elsewhere;

(2) how much has been made available under the Local Employment Act for the new graving dock at Greenock; and what has been the total cost of this dock.

Mr. Price: The Government have advanced £2·85 million towards the total cost estimated at £4·25 million. The dock was expected to accommodate ships of the largest sizes contemplated at the time when assistance was offered. I understand that there are larger repair docks in other countries but no other dry dock of comparable capacity in the United Kingdom.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Does my hon. Friend consider that these facilities are sufficiently widely known and does he anticipate that they will be used to capacity? Would he agree that this is an admirable example of the combination of private enterprise and Government policy?

Mr. Price: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says. I am quite certain that when the dock is completed it will be well known to shippers and that they will make full use of it.

Mr. Hector Hughes: As to the last phrase in the hon. Lady's Question, will the Minister say why there has been such a delay in providing the dock facilities for Aberdeen harbour, long planned, and why he has not placed at the disposal of the Aberdeen Harbour Commissioners the additional finance which has been used as the excuse for the delay? Will he expedite the matter?

Mr. Price: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the matter of the Harbour Commission in Aberdeen is not for us in the Board of Trade. If he will put down a Question to the appropriate Minister, I have no doubt that he will get a reply.

Nuclear Reactors (Export)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what progress he has made in his conversations with the United States of America and other countries on the modification of the ban on the export of nuclear reactors for electricity generation to Eastern area countries.

The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Heath): Discussions have been initiated with our allies on this subject. These discussions must remain confidential, but the matter is complex and will inevitably take time to resolve.

Mr. Digby: Whatever the respective merits of our type of reactor for power generation and the American reactor, can my right hon. Friend assure me that we shall be on an equal footing with the Americans with regard to any possible orders from Eastern Europe?

Mr. Heath: Of course, the basis on which the Eastern Socialist countries discuss these matters is one for them to decide. If my hon. Friend is referring to the question of restriction by agreement between the allies, then, of course, I can give him. that assurance.

Mr. Jay: Is there any ban upon the export of these reactors to Fascist countries?

Mr. Heath: Under the Cocom arrangements these are, of course, controlled.

Factories, The Hartlepools (Architects)

Commander Kerans: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development how many architects in private practice in The Hartlepools have been awarded commissions for the development and design of factories built by Her Majesty's Government on the industrial estate in the constituency in view of the need to

employ local labour and the fact that the unemployment rate is still 5 per cent.

Mr. D. Price: One of the two firms of architects practising in The Hartlepools has been employed by the Industrial Estates Management Corporation for England on the construction of seven out of 15 Board of Trade factories completed or in hand there during the last five years.

Industrial Development, North-East Scotland

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development whether he will list the inducements offered to firms who wish to establish themselves in the development districts of north-east Scotland; and what assistance to these firms is offered by his own Department.

Mr. Heath: The inducements offered by my Department to development districts in north-east Scotland, in common with all development districts, consist of Government built factories, standard grants towards costs of building and plant and machinery, as well as loans and grants specifically related to the needs of the individual project. In addition, favourable tax allowances in respect of capital equipment are available under the Finance Act, 1963, and the Ministry of Labour can assist with the expenses of key workers transferred from elsewhere.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, for which we in the north-east of Scotland are truly grateful, may I ask him if he is aware that advance factories, which were part of the list he read out, in Fraserburgh and Peterhead have aroused considerable local feeling because of the way they have been handled from the start? Is he aware that even now one of them has not yet been built and that there is still doubt about the outcome of the one at Fraserburgh? Cannot this procedure be hurried up and clarified, not only for the sake of the people concerned in the area but also for the good which they have been designed to achieve?

Mr. Heath: I am prepared to look at the progress that is being made on


these two advance factories. If my hon. Friend has any information which might be of assistance I hope that he will let me have it.

Employment Returns

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what steps he has taken to implement the recommendation made in the Report by the Estimates Committee on the working of the Local Employment Act, 1960, that regular quarterly statistics should be produced showing the number of new jobs actually provided as a result of the operation of the Act.

Mr. Heath: A quarterly series of employment returns was instituted in March, 1963. Returns are obtained on a sampling basis from firms receiving financial assistance under the Local Employment Acts. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a summary of the results for the year 1960–61.

Mr. Hamilton: Are there no more recent figures? Is it not the case that when the reply was given to the Estimates Committee it was indicated that the firms had been asked in August, 1963, for information concerning their employment at 31st March and 30th June, 1963? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for which the Estimates Committee asked, even though the Government believe that they might be misleading or might not convey the whole picture? Since an all-party committee of this House asked for this information, should it not now be provided?

Mr. Heath: We are under no obligation to provide the information because we have given an explanation to the Committee about why we think it is not practicable to handle it. The reason why I am not providing later figures is that recruitment is still not completed for some of the projects since that date, even for some of those for which I am giving figures for 1960–61. I therefore do not propose to give figures to the House which, as the hon. Gentleman himself said, could be misleading.

Mr. Hamilton: Why does the right hon. Gentleman take it upon himself

not to issue these figures because he thinks they might be misleading? This House has a right to the statistics and it is for hon. Members to decide whether or not they are misleading.

Mr. Heath: If the figures are not complete I feel that I am entirely justified in not giving them to the House. We are doing our utmost to meet the requests of hon. Members, even though that involves an immense amount of work for industry and the Department. Both of those things have to be taken into account. If recruitment is not completed the figures themselves are, to a large extent, valueless; and I do not believe that I would be justified in producing them.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of those answers I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Following is the summary:
In accordance with the recommendation by the Estimates Committee in its Seventh Report in Session 1962–63 (paragraph 38(2)) the Board of Trade has instituted a quarterly series of returns by a substantial sample of firms receiving assistance under the Local Employment Acts with a view to discovering the number of jobs that have been created as a result.
The latest inquiry, made at the end of March, 1964, showed that the projects included in the sample, which accounted for 89 per cent. of the potential employment in projects offered assistance in 1960–61, had so rar provided 29,160 jobs. This was 72 per cent. of the number of jobs which the firms estimated, at the time that they applied for assistance, would eventually be provided when recruitment was completed. If the progress of recruitment has been similar in the projects not covered by the inquiry the total number of jobs created by March, 1964, in all the projects offered assistance in 1960–61 would be 32,750. The total is likely to be larger than this since the sample relates to larger projects in respect of which the period of labour recruitment is relatively long, and indeed in some cases the process of recruitment of labour has not yet been completed. The total amount of assistance in all forms that was offered for these projects was £42·8 million and the original estimates were that they would provide 45,900 jobs.
Since the inquiry covers only a sample of projects the results do not provide a basis for indicating progress over small areas in different parts of the country. But a division can be made between Scotland and the rest of Britain: of the 29,160 jobs in the sample projects, 11,670 had been provided in Scotland and 17,490 in England and Wales.

North-East

Mr. Popplewell: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development how many new industries have been established in the North-East between April, 1963, and the latest convenient date; and how many workpeople they now employ.

Mr. Heath: Eighteen units new to the North-East have been set up since April, 1963, and are now employing about one quarter of their total potential employment of approximately 4,000.

Mr. Popplewell: Is the Secretary of State aware how alarming his statement is? Does he realise that it indicates that during the last two years there has been a net loss in the North-East of 29 firms, meaning approximately 2,700 fewer personnel, coupled with the migration of about 12,000 people from the North-East during the year? Will the right hon. Gentleman now accept that his policy, which has been talked about so much, is a complete failure? What does he hope to do in these closing days of this Government to try to redress the situation and bring some new life into the North-East?

Mr. Heath: We debated this last week. I do not for a moment accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Neither do I accept the basis for the figures on which he has been trying to work this out. If he will set down a Question asking for the specific information he wants I will do my best to give it to him. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that 37 additional firms have decided in this period to go to the North-East, although they are not yet in production. These 37 firms are of immense importance, so I entirely repudiate what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Bourne-Arton: Can my right hon. Friend say what expansions there have been, with Board of Trade assistance, in existing firms which are already in the area, and how many jobs that has created? Would not these figures give a much more balanced picture?

Mr. Heath: I am able to give a large number of figures if I am asked for them. I naturally do not have all these figures here, but the point which my hon. Friend makes is a very sound one.

Mr. Popplewell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures which

I quoted are comparable with those which his right hon. Friend gave to me last Monday regarding the number of firms which have closed down and the total loss of employment in this area? Since those figures were given to me by his right hon. Friend, is it not obvious that they are comparable?

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is entirely leaving out of account the expansion and increase in existing firms in the area. These provide jobs in the North-East and it is not a sound basis of comparison just to quote the figures which the hon. Gentleman has obtained of firms which have left the area.

Mr. Proudfoot: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is not just a matter of figures but that the people of the North-East believe that this Government have done the right thing by them?

Coatbridge and Airdrie

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development how many additional jobs he anticipates will be provided in Coatbridge and Airdrie during the second half of this year; and if he will give details.

Mr. D. Price: There are now over 10,300 jobs in prospect in the North Lanarkshire Group of employment exchange areas. Over 3,400 of these are expected to arise in Coatbridge and Airdrie. I cannot estimate how many of them are likely to arise in the second part of this year.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that while that news will be welcomed by the people of Coatbridge and Airdrie and of North Lanarkshire generally, so far the number of jobs provided has failed to meet the amount of unemployment which has arisen out of obsolescence in industry and changes in the techniques of manufacture and production? Has he seen the figures published recently by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, showing that Coatbridge and Airdrie regretfully occupy first and third places in the unemployment league table of Lanarkshire? Is it not time that the Government tackled this unemployment problem in an effective fashion by creating an adequate number of jobs in the area?

Mr. Price: I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a problem. At the same time, I would ask him to recognise that there has been a considerable improvement. In June, 1963, 6·8 per cent. of the working population of North Lanarkshire was registered as unemployed. In June of this year the figure was 4·2 per cent., a considerable improvement.

Textile Industry

Mr. Mapp: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development, if he will state separately for the years 1951 and 1963 the number of working operatives in the textile industry, the volume of production of cotton and man-made fibre cloth, the imports and exports of cotton and man-made fibre cloth, and the imports and exports of made-up cotton articles.

Mr. Heath: As the Answer includes a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Mapp: Is the Secretary of State aware that despite the inherent and, to some extent, continuing weaknesses of the textile industry, these figures will doubtless reflect the intense havoc and personal distress in the industry during the 12 years of this Government? Will he now, in reply to the industry's protestations to him, consider a policy to enable the textile industry to be viable in the future; or have we to wait for some electoral strategy to retain Lancashire seats on behalf of the Government?

Mr. Heath: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should look at the figures for which he has asked before drawing conclusions. There is a Question on the Order Paper later about my conversations with the Cotton Board last night which deals with this point.

Sir J. Barlow: Does my right hon. Friend realise that we are the only great industrial textile country which does not reasonably protect its own people? Does he realise, for example, that America allows only 5½ per cent. imports and Germany 7½ per cent., whereas about 35 per cent. of home consumption is allowed in this country?

Mr. Heath: I think that my hon. Friend realises that my object is to give

a stable basis to the textile industry. At the same time, we must take full account of the interests of the Commonwealth and developing countries which are selling textiles to this country.

Following is the table:

1951
1963


Operatives in employment in the textile industry (thousands) (mid-year)
934
671


Operatives in employment in the cotton and man-made fibre industry (thousands) (average number at work during year)
333
165


Woven cotton and man-made fibre cloth:




U.K. production (million linear yards)
2,961
1,574


U.K. imports (million square yards)
475
700


U.K. exports (million square yards)
1,083
303

Comprehensive figures in volume terms for trade in cotton made-up goods are not available.

United Nations Conference of Trade and Development (White Paper)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development whether he will publish a White Paper on the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. A White Paper is being published today.

Mrs. Castle: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but does he not agree that it is a pity we have had to wait five weeks for this information on a very important matter? Does he not think that the House ought to have had an opportunity before the Summer Recess to study the attitude of Her Majesty's Government on this subject. In view of the fact that there are to be continuing discussions in the autumn, can he now announce what Her Majesty's Government's intentions are in regard to increased contributions to the Special Fund and the Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance?

Mr. Heath: I am as anxious as the hon. Lady is that there should be the fullest discussion of the achievements of the Geneva Conference and, in particular, of the work of the British delegation there. This White Paper contains the Final Act, together with the two speeches I made to the conference. The Final Act was given to us by the secretariat of the conference only on 5th July, and it


consists of 200 pages in the White Paper. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady will agree that getting out such a very large White Paper containing the whole of these documents has been very speedy indeed. As regards the second part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question, I made an announcement in Geneva about the additional contributions. I cannot tell her at the moment how much they will be; that will be announced in the autumn.

International Trade

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development if he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the British international trading position, including such matters as why Great Britain is not obtaining a greater share of the world market, how to increase the volume of British exports, the effects of trading associations on the imports and cost of raw materials and other related matters, with instructions to report as soon as possible.

Mr. Heath: No, Sir.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Does that reply mean that we have to accept a complacent attitude towards the serious export problems that face us? Does the Secretary of State agree with me that we have some of the most efficient, hard-working and fast-working people engaged in the export industries of any in the world, and is there not something fundamentally wrong when we continue to lose such a percentage of the world's export trade?

Mr. Heath: There is no complacency in the Government about exports, and the announcement I made recently about the new structure of the Export Council bears witness to that. What it means is that we do not consider that the appointment of a Royal Commission is the best way to improve our export position and encourage the greater initiative and enterprise we still want in industry. The hon. Gentleman may recall that the last Royal Commission to examine this subject was appointed in 1924 and reported in 1929, having in the meantime produced six volumes of evidence and failed to reach conclusions. We therefore feel that it is better to use the

machinery that exists rather than to set up a Royal Commission.

Sir C. Osborne: Would not my right hon. Friend agree, first, that there is no way of increasing British exports except by either increasing the quality of our goods or reducing the prices? Secondly, could he look into the danger of exports being sold in foreign markets at lower prices than in the home market and thereby selling at a loss to the nation?

Mr. Heath: I do not agree that the two things my hon. Friend mentions are the only things that can be done with exports. A great deal can be done through salesmanship, and a great deal can be done by consulting and meeting the particular needs of the markets, and I hope that British industry will continue to concentrate on these things.

Bishop Auckland

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development how much factory building has been started in the Bishop Auckland constituency as a result of the measures proposed in Command Paper No. 2206; how many jobs have so far been created; and how many are in the pipeline.

Mr. D. Price: No factory building has been started in the Bishop Auckland constituency since the publication of Command Paper No. 2206. But two advance factories started before then have been completed and a tenant found for one. In addition, assistance under the Local Employment Acts, 1960, and 1963 has been offered to five projects, expected to give rise to 75 new jobs.

Mr. Boyden: At that rate, the unemployment rate in this constituency will be equal to the national average by about 1984. Will the hon. Gentleman say why he has cast Bishop Auckland for the rôle of a travel-to-work area and an area where there is to be continued migration, instead of taking much more vigorous steps to stimulate the development of industry locally, and introducing other industry?

Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer, because we have had this out many times before. Bishop Auckland


is not in the growth zone in the North-East. It is in the travel-to-work area. It remains a development district outside the growth zone and, therefore, any industry going there can take advantage of the Local Employment Acts. The facilities are there.

Door-to-Door Sales (Licensing of Businesses)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development if he will take steps to require the licensing of all businesses calling at homes for the purpose of sales for gain with requisite exemptions in respect of milk, bread, laundry and similar businesses.

Mr. Heath: I understand that the Consumer Council is considering this matter, and I await its views with interest.

Mr. Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a great deal of anxiety exists about the malpractices of a small section of these people, and that registration of businesses rather than individuals doing the work would, on the whole, cause no anxiety or trouble to the businesses concerned?

Mr. Heath: I realise the deepening public anxiety about this problem. The Molony Committee examined it, and decided that registration or licensing was not practicable. But the Consumer Council took this as one of the first three subjects for immediate consideration after it was formed, and I will therefore await is findings on the matter.

Trade with U.S.S.R.

Commander Courtney: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development, if he will publish the specific written assurance he has received from the Soviet Minister of Foreign Trade regarding the correction of the present imbalance of trade between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom; and why this has not been included in Command Paper No. 2402 concerning Prolongation of the Anglo-Soviet Agreement of 1959.

Mr. Heath: I informed Mr. Patolichev of the concern of the United Kingdom at the serious imbalance in the trade between our two countries

during the term of the 1959 Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement. Accordingly, I asked Mr. Patolichev to continue to take the necessary measures to increase the scale of Russian purchases of United Kingdom goods for cash or on normal suppliers' credit in relation to the volume of United Kingdom purchases from the Soviet Union so as to achieve a much closer balance in the trade between our two countries. In his reply, Mr. Patolichev confirmed that the competent Soviet authorities would act in accordance with my request.
This exchange was not included in the White Paper because it did not form part of the formal documents relating to the Prolongation of the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement.

Commander Courtney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a general impression that such a written undertaking was given, and that I am disappointed to hear that the undertaking was only a verbal one? Does he appreciate that it is the impression of some of us that in dealing with Russia he is perhaps unaware of the strength of some of the cards in his hand which do not always extend only to the narrow field of trade statistics?

Mr. Heath: This is a written undertaking. It is not only a verbal undertaking, but a written one. It is very clear. We have also the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement.

Sir K. Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there may be great possibilities of further trade in these quarters if we continue to be ready to look at the restrictive list of goods and keep it constantly up to date so that without offending our allies, we are able to take advantage of such trade opportunities as occur?

Mr. Heath: We do keep this list under constant review, and there are frequent conferences between the allies to review the whole list.

Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that trade with the Soviet Union partly depends on the state of the restrictive list, and is he sure that the classification is realistic in present-day conditions?

Mr. Heath: I think that, broadly speaking, they are realistic, but the plain


fact is that there is scope for increased trade quite apart from the list, and this is agreed both by the Soviet Union and ourselves.

Commander Courtney: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development why the quota for Soviet earthenware and china to be imported into the United Kingdom during the current year is four times the value of the corresponding quota for British exports to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, contrary to Article 4(1) of the existing trade agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. Heath: Article 4(1) of the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement provides that the facilities for the exchange of consumer goods shall be balanced. There is no obligation nor need to balance the quotas for individual goods. The individual quotas depend on the desire of one country to export the goods concerned and the willingness of the other to accept them.

Commander Courtney: Surely my right hon. Friend will agree that china and earthenware are traditional exports of the United Kingdom, while the same cannot be said of the U.S.S.R. countries? Can my right hon. Friend explain why Russia and East Europe is the one remaining area for which an export council has not yet been formed?

Mr. Heath: To answer the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question, the reason is that trading in the Eastern Socialist countries is State trading, so that decisions are made by the machinery of Government and cannot be influenced by export councils working on individual buyers. As for the first part of his supplementary question, if I were to follow the implication of my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion this would lead to a limitation of trade with the Eastern Socialist countries and not to the expansion that he was earlier pressing on me.

Sir B. Stross: Is the Minister aware that our china and earthenware workers are the most skilled there are, and that for many years the Soviet Union has been keen to import some of them to improve its own industry, but that we have not been able to allow the Russians to have them?

Mr. Heath: I do not think that that is a question for me.

Young Persons, Airdrie (Employment)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development if he will take steps to provide adequate jobs for young persons who are registering for employment in the Airdrie Youth Employment Office; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. D. Price: My right hon. Friend will continue to encourage suitable industrial development in the area. North Lanarkshire will benefit from the increase in the level of activity throughout the region as a whole, which is the objective of the Government's programme for development and growth in Central Scotland.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that his party has had exactly five years to achieve this purpose, and has failed in it, so that today we have too many boys, in particular, chasing too few jobs? Is not this an unbalanced economy when in southern England we have too few boys for too many jobs? Is it not time that the position was reversed, and our boys given a decent opportunity to make progress in their lives?

Mr. Price: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is quite up to date. At the moment, according to the Airdrie Youth Employment Office there are 70 boys and girls unemployed in the area and there are 73 vacancies. With regard to opportunities, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might take pride in the fact that in the first six months of this year 43·3 per cent. of boys in the area entering first employment got apprenticeships, as against the national average of 32·6 per cent. From this it would seem that the opportunities appear to be rather better in Airdrie than they are in the country at large.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the office of the Youth Employment Service has just issued a statement indicating that it is faced with a serious problem in finding jobs for male school leavers and that the vacancies to which he refers are suitable for females? What opportunities can be offered to young boys leaving school? Will the Department and the


Government do something if not for the hon. Member for the area and for the Opposition then at least for these youths?

Mr. Price: The figures which I have given indicate that there has been considerable progress, and the fact that there is a higher rate of apprenticeship than in the country at large should be a matter for pride.

Spain ("Leander" Class Frigates)

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development if he will give a list of the firms which have requested his assistance in the signing of a trade agreement with Spain for the supply of warships; and what assistance he offered to these firms by way of credit or other means.

Mr. Heath: No, Sir; because to do so would be a breach of commercial confidence.

Mr. Lewis: Can we have some frank talking or speaking, whatever the Prime Minister's phrase may be? If the right hon. Gentleman were to speak in accordance with what he knows to be the facts, would he not say that there have been no agreements and no approaches for credit? Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean and make that clear?

Mr. Heath: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence have both dealt with this matter very clearly. What is required is not more frank speaking but clearer and more sensible thinking by hon. and right hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Jay: As the right hon. Gentleman told the House just now that the Cocom restrictions on strategic exports applied to Fascist as well as Communist countries, may I ask to which countries the Government apply restrictions on strategic exports?

Mr. Heath: If the right hon. Gentleman wants a full answer perhaps he will put down a Question and I will let him have the complete information. It involves, as he knows, other countries. It is not the Cocom restrictions that apply to exports to other countries as far as nuclear reactors are concerned. I was

referring to that item specifically and not to the Cocom restrictions.

Mr. Jay: Do these restrictions on strategic exports apply to South Africa, Indonesia, Cuba and Spain?

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman knows that for certain articles they apply to some of these countries, but if he wants specific answers about all of these countries he should put down a Question.

Travel Agents

Mr. Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development if he will now introduce legislation to provide for the registration of travel agents and the introduction of a code of conduct.

Mr. D. Price: No, Sir, but my right hon. Friend will continue to keep in close touch with British Travel and Holidays Association about this matter.

Mr. Milne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if some of the time which was devoted to resale price maintenance in the House had been given to this very important aspect of consumer protection, many British holiday-makers would have been saved from some of their experiences in the past two or three years?

Mr. Price: I am sorry for any holiday-maker who has a bad or unsatisfactory holiday but I do not accept the hon. Member's contentions. The number of complaints known to the Board of Trade about the conduct of travel agencies is small in relation to the number using their services. Secondly, and most important, we have no evidence to suggest that in countries where registration is compulsory the standards of travel agents are higher than they are in Britain.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the distinction between a travel agent and an inclusive tour operator, which the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) does not seem to appreciate? Would not the hon. Gentleman consider, as a means of protecting people against inclusive tour operators who have not sufficient resources, making it compulsory upon them to publish details of their paid-up capital on any literature sent out to the public?

Mr. Price: That is an interesting suggestion. I do not know that it would give very much more protection, but, as I explained in my original Answer, my right hon. Friend is keeping in touch with the British Travel and Holidays Association which has been looking into this matter.

Mr. Milne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) appears to be equally badly informed as the Board of Trade? Is he aware that there is considerable disquiet and that the Board of Trade has failed in its duty to that section of the public by not doing something before now and that there is ample evidence which the Board can obtain if it seeks to look for it in an effort to alleviate the suffering that has taken place?

Mr. Price: The hon. Member will know that the Consumer Council has had a look at this matter and that all that it has said is that there might be a case for the compulsory licensing of travel agencies. We will continue to discuss the matter both with the Council and the British Travel and Holidays Association, but current evidence does not show that the Bill which the hon. Member wants would have alleviated distress in certain of these cases.

Mr. Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what study he has made of the communication sent to him about the activities of a travel agency; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. D. Price: I have considered a communication from a correspondent of the hon. Member about hotel accommodation provided for him at a foreign resort. If the facts are as he says, I certainly sympathise with the hon. Member's correspondent, although I understand that the firm in question has now agreed to make a cash refund.

Mr. Milne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the firm in question changed hands on 9th July, that efforts are still being made on the Continent to contact the previous directors of the firm and that it is due to their activities that a great deal of the suffering has taken place? Is he also aware that information on this matter, as well, appears to be utterly inadequate?

Mr. Price: With great respect to the hon. Member, I am prepared to go into the case but from the facts I am not in a position to do so. Nobody but a court of law is in that position especially because, as I understand, the dispute arose on what type of accommodation the firm's customers were entitled to expect in relation to the advertisements and whether the accommodation which the firm provided fell short of the standard. That, at the end of the day, is a matter for the courts.

Steel (Price Agreements)

Mr. T. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development why he will not make available to the House the text of the ruling by the Restrictive Practices Court on steel price agreements.

Mr. Heath: This judgment is reported in extenso in the Weekly Law Report for 10th July, 1964, under the title "In re British Heavy Steel Makers' Agreement". This will shortly be available in the Library.

Mr. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very shortly hon. Members will be going away for the Summer Recess and the General Election? In view of the propaganda of the steel companies, partly at the cost of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, claiming great advantages for competitive private enterprise in this industry, may I ask whether it is not highly desirable that the Press and the public should be fully informed of the results of this inquiry showing that there is something lacking in the competitive claim for the industry?

Mr. Heath: I am fully in agreement with both the Press and the public having the fullest information. If the hon. Member wants it he can read it in The Times of the following day where the case was reported in extenso. It is not customary to publish judicial judgments as White Papers for the House and that is why I have not published this. I said that the full Law Report would be available shortly. I understand that the Report is in the post but I cannot say when it will arrive.

Mr. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have read The Times


law report and several other newspaper reports? Is he aware that if one reads several newspaper reports one reads reports which are clearly biased according to the political attitude of the newspaper publishing them?

Mr. W. Hamilton: And The Times.

Mr. Fraser: I would remind the Minister that The Times is for top people and we are not concerned just for top people in this country. Is not it a responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to make this objective analysis of industry available to all people throughout the country?

Mr. Heath: Whatever the hon. Member may think about newspapers, this is the first time that I have heard anybody question the objectivity of The Times law reports. As I have said, the Report in extenso will be available soon in the Library.

Wool Textiles (Exports to U.S.A.)

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development the value of British wool textile exports to the United States of America in 1955 and 1963; and what information he has from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as to how they compare with Japanese wool textile exports to the United States of America in the same years.

Mr. Heath: Imports into the United States of America of wool yarns and fabrics from the United Kingdom were valued at £12 million in 1955 and £8 million in 1963. Corresponding imports from Japan were valued at £2·7 million in 1955 and £17 million in 1963.

Mr. Duffy: Is not the Minister gravely concerned at this devastating onslaught by Japan on our trade with North America? How far is it due to the assistance given to Japan by our own Foreign Office for political and strategic reasons? How far is this policy to be pursued at the expense of our own wool textile industry?

Mr. Heath: Sales in the American market are a question of competition between all countries in that market. Japan's sales are not being aided by the

British Foreign Office in any way. This is a matter of competition between industries and countries in the American market. I hope that our wool industry will do its utmost to compete with the Japanese, although I realise exactly how fierce this competition is.

Mr. Rhodes: Does the Minister agree that the wool trade has shown great resilience in exports by exceeding this year the export figures to foreign countries for the past five years? Is the Minister aware, however, that we could do even better in our trade if we got as good assistance from Government organisations here as the Japanese get from their Government?

Mr. Heath: I am the first to pay tribute, as I did in Bradford recently, to the achievements of the wool industry in exports; they are invaluable to us. If the hon. Member would like to let me know of any instances in which he thinks that we can be of more service to the wool industry, I will gladly consider them.

British Industrial Exhibition, Barcelona

Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development whether he will make a statement on the results obtained from the recent British trade fair in Madrid.

Mr. Heath: A British industrial exhibition was organised by British Overseas Fairs Ltd. in Barcelona—not Madrid, as my hon. Friend states—in April this year. British firms and their Spanish agents were in general well satisfied with the results but precise information is not yet available.

Mr. Hastings: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that much of the good effect of this trade fair has been jeopardised by the Leader of the Opposition? While exports from this country to Spain have trebled over the last five years, are we not now meeting increasing competition from the Germans, French and Americans and increased consumer resistance overall to our products since the order for the Spanish frigates was suspended? Can my right hon. Friend now say to the House what he thinks that the Leader of the Opposition should do to try to mitigate some


of the damage which he has done to our trade in this way?

Mr. Speaker: The last part of that cannot be in order. The multiple responsibilities of the Minister do not include that activity.

Mr. Heath: I agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is not for me to tell the Leader of the Opposition what he ought to do. As to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I was at the exhibition myself and there was no doubt about the great impression which was made on Spanish industrialists and possible purchasers by the very high quality of the engineering and other goods shown at the exhibition. I hope, therefore, that considerable orders will be coming to British firms.

Mr. Wigg: Will the Secretary of State use his great influence with the Prime Minister to get a White Paper published showing the amount of equipment which the Government have refused to supply to the Indian Government?

Door-to-Door Salesmen (Hire-Purchase Agreements)

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development, in view of the illegal trading activities of the Blackpool firm, New Era Electrics, arising from operations by their door-to-door salesmen in the St. Helens constituency, whether he will take steps to investigate these activities; and whether he will introduce legislation to stop the use of minors in the making of hire-purchase agreements.

Mr. D. Price: My right hon. Friend is advised that the documents which the hon. Member has submitted reveal no grounds on which he could order an investigation. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said on 23rd June, if the hon. Gentleman has evidence that a criminal offence has been committed, the facts ought to be investigated by the local police. The answer to the second part of the Question is that the general law already protects minors adequately in relation to hire-purchase transactions.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minister aware that New Era Electrics, Blackpool, is still operating and taking advantage of

old people and even selling secondhand machines as new, and that this case has ben reported to the Blackpool Police but that the Chief Constable has taken no action? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if this firm sends its lackeys to St. Helens again, I will report the case to the police and ask them to take action? Is not the Minister aware that his attitude and that of his Department in leaving old people unprotected is cowardly?

Mr. Price: The hon. Member should be fair about this. The general enforcement of the law is the responsibility of the local police. My right and learned Friend the Attorney-General looked into the case and, as the hon. Member knows—I repeat it again today—his advice to the hon. Member and his constituents was to deal with the local police, whose job this is.

Mr. Spriggs: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

ATOMIC ENERGY PROJECT (HISTORY)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister if he will have an up-to-date White Paper published, containing the facts on the development of nuclear energy, the research carried out at the Manchester University, the Manchester College of Technology, the M. V. Trafford Park Research Department, the development of heavy water in Norway, the dates on which the results of the research were taken to the United States of America and the reasons why, details of the credit due to the individuals concerned, and the secret transactions that took place which resulted in the nuclear bomb being produced in the United States of America and later by the British Government.

The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): The first volume of a history of the United Kingdom atomic energy project under the title "Britain and Atomic Energy 1939–45" has been prepared by the Atomic Energy Authority's historian and archivist. It will be published in September and I am advised that most of the points mentioned in the Question will be dealt with in this volume.

Mr. Ellis Smith: While appreciating that reply from the Prime Minister, may I ask him whether he agrees with me that our export trade in the future will depend more upon scientific development and upon development in engineering than at any time in the past? Does he agree that there are thousands of excellent young men and women working in the laboratories to keep in the forefront of world development? If so, will he see that this history is circulated to them to encourage them in the good work they are doing?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

COMMONWEALTH TRADE

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister what decisions were made by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers with regard to the expansion of Commonwealth trade.

The Prime Minister: At the Commonwealth Prime Ministers Meeting we made a thorough review of the world economic situation, with particular reference to Commonwealth problems and needs. The communiqué, which was circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 16th July, makes it clear that there was agreement on many points important for the expansion of trade and for Commonwealth co-operation to this end.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is it not important to maintain our share of this important trade? Is the Prime Minister aware that during the 13 years of Conservative rule, the United Kingdom's share of Commonwealth trade has dropped from 25 per cent. to 19 per cent. and that if our exports to the Commonwealth had gone up at the same rate as the increase in total Commonwealth imports, we would this year be exporting £375 million more than we are doing? Does not this single fact show to the Prime Minister that his economic priorities, as well as his moral priorities, are completely misplaced in pursuing the Spanish arms deal? Is he further aware that information has come to light today showing that an important Indian order for a chemical factory from I.C.I., about which negotiations began 14 months ago, has been held up for six months as a result of Ministerial fumbling? What will the Prime Minister do about this?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Member or anybody else who looks at the figures of trade and aid to India and the way we try to help could really fault us in this respect. We have given an enormous amount of aid, military and otherwise, to India, particularly to help her in her difficulties with the Chinese. Of course, as the hon. Member has said, the percentage of exports has fallen. My figures are from 36 per cent. in 1959 to 30 per cent. in 1963. But, of course—

Mr. W. Hamilton: Why 1959?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) has taken one set of figures; I am taking another. There is no dispute that the percentage has fallen, and there are a number of reasons for this. Some non-Commonwealth markets, especially in Western Europe, have been expanding more quickly than those of the Common-weath. Newly independent Commonwealth countries are exploring alternative sources of supply. Our own agricultural production has risen very fast and industrialisation in the Commonwealth countries themselves means that they are now making goods which formerly we exported. Of course, we must make every effort to increase inter-Commonwealth trade—that is common to us all—but it is not very surprising that there has been a fall in this proportion.

Mr. P. Williams: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the important thing is to increase our efforts to stimulate Commonwealth trade, first for the merits of that itself, and secondly to enable Commonwealth countries to explore the other markets about which he has just been talking? Would he further agree that one of the most important things which can be done for the developing members of the Commonwealth is to come to some form of an agreement on stabilisation of commodity prices to ensure that they earn foreign currency with which they can buy our finished products?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. This is one of the things to which we gave our support at the Geneva Conference, which we are following up with other members of the Commonwealth.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures which


he has quoted, which recently appeared in the Treasury Bulletin, show that between 1959 and 1963 there was a fall from 36 to 32 per cent. in the imports from the Commonwealth and from 36 to 30 per cent. in our exports to the Commonwealth? Having regard to all the difficulties that he mentioned, as Commonwealth imports from the outside world and other Commonwealth countries have been rising quite remarkably particularly so far as manufactured goods are concerned, is he really satisfied with the effort made either by the Government or by our exporters in holding a fair share of that market? If Germany, Japan and the United States could export manufactured goods to these Commonwealth countries between 1959 and 1963 as they have done, will he say why we could not?

The Prime Minister: I am never satisfied with the position, obviously, but I hope that the new National Export Council, to which my right hon. Friend referred the other day, which will deal with Commonwealth countries either individually or by areas, will assist our exports, which I think is the right hon. Gentleman's desire. At the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference every Commonwealth country desired to take the fullest advantage that it possibly could of the expansion in world trade, and, therefore, they did not want any restrictive arrangements in the Commonwealth itself.

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh.

An Hon. Member: Give another member of the orchestra a chance.

Mr. Wilson: Since some of us have been pressing for this without any hope from the Government for 12 years, we have the right to put these questions now.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not feel that, in addition to the very valuable discussion at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference and elsewhere about world trade, in which both we and the Commonwealth have an interest, it would have been a good idea to have spent a considerable time there, or at the trade conference of Commonwealth Ministers which we suggested last year, discussing mutual arrangements on a bilateral basis

between Britain and each Commonwealth country for the granting of preferences in the award of contracts by Commonwealth countries to Britain and for us to have given some assured and guaranteed markets for Commonwealth primary produce here? Could we not have had a little time devoted to that either at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference or at a trade conference? [Interruption.] This is not ruled out by G.A.T.T. The Secretary of State for Industry and Trade does not understand.

The Prime Minister: I shall be very surprised if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of States does not understand. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that throughout the year there are meetings; the finance officials meet at least twice a year, and the Finance Ministers meet twice a year. So the questions that he has raised are constantly reviewed by the Finance Ministers of the Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Hastings: Is it not the direct interest of this country and of all the Commonwealth countries that they should diversify their trade in other countries outside the Commonwealth, and is this not precisely what is happening?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; that is true. This is what I meant when I said—[Laughter.]—I do not know why hon. Members opposite seem to find this funny—that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at their meeting did not want to see an exclusively Commonwealth club. They wanted the widest trade possible.

COMMONWEALTH FOUNDATION (TECHNICAL PERSONNEL)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Prime Minister if he will propose to the other Commonwealth Governments that the proposals in the communiqué of the Conference of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers for a Commonwealth Foundation to encourage exchanges in the fields of the professions should be extended to cover training and exchanges of technical personnel.

The Prime Minister: The proposals for a Commonwealth Foundation, together with other projects mentioned in


the communiqué, have now been remitted to Commonwealth officials for study. I would not exclude the idea of a Foundation extending its activities as proposed and no doubt this will form part of the study by officials. But this is a matter on which all Commonwealth Governments will have to agree. Much will, of course, depend on the funds available to the Foundation at the beginning and on the fact that it has been devised essentially as a means of promoting further Commonwealth links in the professional field.

Mr. Grimond: I thank the Prime Minister for saying that he is not averse to extending the remit of the Foundation. Is he aware that the need in many of the developing countries for skilled personnel and for technicians is as great as the need for professional men and women, and that some years ago there was an attempt to start in this country a scheme for bringing people from those countries for apprenticeships here, a scheme which was backed by employers and unions? Would it not be a great service if the Government put their influence behind the scheme and made funds available to expand it?

The Prime Minister: I think that this may certainly be a development in the future. We do not want to overstretch the Foundation to start with. We have to find the necessary money to finance it at present in the education field and it is now proposed in the fields of medicine and engineering, too. The Secretary for Technical Co-operation and the Commonwealth Relations Office arrange technical assistance with other Governments.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the announcement in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué in support of an agreement prohibiting the further dissemination of nuclear weapons, he will propose to President Johnson and Mr. Khrushchev a next step agreement covering the above proposal.

The Prime Minister: Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and

I have many times proposed this. But the Russians have not agreed. I hope this will be one of the matters which my right hon. Friend will have an opportunity to discuss in Moscow.

Mr. Henderson: Is not the main obstacle to a non-dissemination agreement the opposition of the Soviet Union to a multilateral nuclear force? Can we be assured that the proposal for a multilateral force will not be allowed by the Government to prevent the achievement of a non-dissemination agreement?

The Prime Minister: This has been the official Russian reaction. It is difficult to see why, because, as I have said before, and, I think, in this House, the creation of a multilateral force must mean more fingers on the safety catch, if I may put it that way. On the other hand, it is quite possible to devise a non-dissemination agreement and an agreement on a multilateral force which would not be inconsistent with each other.

Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his colleague, the Minister without Portfolio, yesterday in another place defended the multilateral force on the ground that it would make national deterrents unnecessary? Does not this blow the gaff on the whole of the Government's policy, and do the Government intend to give up the British deterrent if the multilateral force comes into being?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wants to hand over the whole of the nuclear defence of our island to another country — [Interruption.] — the hon. Gentleman asked the question in his own way, and I shall give my answer in my own way. If the hon. Gentleman is proposing to hand over the nuclear defence of our country to another country, I cannot agree with him.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Captain Orr: asked the Prime Minister whether he will advise the appointment of a Royal Commission on the state of the Church of England.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Captain Orr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while I have no desire to embroil him in current religious controversies— [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not? "]—because I think he has enough to do—there has not been a Royal Commission on the Church of England since 1906, and that it is 45 years since the Act was passed setting up the Church Assembly and the relationship between it and Parliament? Would it not be a good thing, in order to delay current religious controversies and the possibility of a clash between this House and the Church Assembly, if some such inquiry were made and provocative legislation by the Church Assembly were held up pending it?

The Prime Minister: I really would not think it right to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission because there are differences of opinion about the Vestures Measure.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the Prime Minister think of some means of divesting this House of responsibility for matters such as the Vestures Measure, which many of us think are extremely trivial in comparison with other matters which should occupy our attention?

The Prime Minister: That may be so. I am expressing no opinion on it, however. All I say is that I do not think that it is time for a Royal Commission now.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: Before my right hon. Friend does consider appointing a Royal Commission—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not going to."]—before he changes his mind in the coming years as Prime Minister, will he ensure that a Royal Commission is desired by members of the Church of England living in the established provinces of Canterbury and York and not just by people living in the unestablished provinces of Wales, Scotland and Ireland?

The Prime Minister: I think that I will leave Scotland out of it, but there must be the widest consultation.

ROLLS RAZOR LTD.

The following Questions stood upon the Order
Paper:

Mr. BELLENGER: To ask the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development whether he is aware of the intention of the board of directors of Rolls Razor Limited to liquidate that company; and, in view of the damage caused to investors in the shares of that company, if he will cause an inquiry to be made into the conduct of the company's business.

Mr. COOPER: To ask the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development if he will set up a committee of inquiry into the affairs of Rolls Razor Limited.

Mr. A. LEWIS: To ask the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development whether he is aware of the concern felt by shareholders in Rolls Razor Limited and English Overseas Investments Limited at the administration of these companies, necessitating the winding-up of the Rolls Razor Company Limited; and whether he will cause an investigation to be made into these companies under the Companies Act.

Mr. DIAMOND: To ask the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development whether he will hold an inquiry under the Companies Act into the affairs of Rolls Razor Limited.

Mr. DARLING: To ask the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development if he will hold an inquiry under the Companies Act into the affairs of the Rolls Razor Company and its subsidiary companies; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now answer Questions Nos. 42, 44, 46, 47 and 49.
I have decided to appoint inspectors under Section 165(b) of the Companies Act, 1948, to investigate the affairs of Rolls Razor Limited.

Mr. Bellenger: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on taking this step so expeditiously. Is he quite sure, now that the company is going into voluntary liquidation, that he has complete powers? If so, will he exercise them to make sure that all books and documents are available to the inspectors forthwith?

Mr. Heath: I am prepared to exercise the powers given to me by the Companies Act.

Mr. A. Lewis: Will the inspectors have an opportunity to examine the fact that, on 2nd July, the chairman of the company made a favourable report about its potentialities and then resigned a couple of days later, while within 15 days of the annual meeting the company went into liquidation? Will these inspectors be able to ascertain from the then chairman—who occupied that position throughout the whole period—just what his views are on this question?

Mr. Heath: I do not propose to comment on any of these matters. I am appointing these inspectors and it is their duty to carry out the inquiry.

Mr. Diamond: I, too, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on acting in this way, but why could not he have taken this decision a little earlier and without pressure from hon. Members on both sides of the House? One understands the difficulties in these matters, but will he ask for the earliest possible publication of the report in view of the considerable anxiety in many cross-sections of the community and everyone's wish, quite naturally, not to come to any conclusions until the report of the inspectors has been fully studied?

Mr. Heath: This decision has not been taken under any pressure of any kind. I had to wait until I could form a judgment on the situation of the company. When the report is received, I will see whether it is possible to give it the speediest possible publication.

Mr. Darling: Will the terms of reference under the Companies Act allow the inspectors to look at the situation that has arisen for customers of this company, particularly those with hire-purchase agreements and those who have paid cash for their washing machines, to whom the company has an obligation to maintain servicing arrangements? Is it possible to

find out whether contractual obligations in this regard will rank higher than, for instance, those to trade creditors when it comes to the winding up?

Mr. Heath: I think that the customary terms of reference for the inspectors, to investigate the affairs of the company, give them great width of inquiry.

Mr. Wigg: Will the inspectors have power to examine the sale and purchase of shares not only in the names of persons who are the ostensible owners, but also in cases where nominees are involved?

Mr. Heath: I think that inspectors have very wide powers indeed under the Act, but I will look into that point.

Mr. A. Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question whether or not the inspectors will have the power to call the former chairman of the company, who was in that position right the way through until 2nd July and who resigned two days after issuing a statement saying that the company was all right? Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that that is put before the inspectors?

Mr. Heath: I am appointing the inspectors and have complete confidence in the powers that they have and the way in which they will carry out their duty.

POST OFFICE (DISPUTE)

Mr. Holt: Mr. Holt(by Private Notice) asked the Postmaster-General what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to secure the maintenance of postal services in view of the postal strike called to begin at midnight on Saturday.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I saw representatives of the Union of Post Office Workers this morning and put a proposal to them. The Emergency Committee of the Union is now considering this proposal.

Mr. Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House and the country will be greatly relieved if a satisfactory result arises from these further negotiations? Will he bear in mind that perhaps the most important of the recommendations of the Armitage Committee was that negotiations could


not be brought to a successful conclusion merely by depending on statistics?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware, with regard to comments made about the position of civil servants to men who believe that they have been left behind, that it is no answer to suggest to these men that, if they are given an extra increase, this will then put them out of line with others who have already accepted a smaller increase?

Mr. Bevins: The Government have made it clear, both in advance of the Armitage Committee Report and subsequently, that they completely accept the recommendations and conclusions of the Report.

Mr. K. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a general feeling in the country now that the important thing to do is to negotiate and that the negotiations should be carried on without duress? Is he aware that there is also a general feeling of sadness that the postmen have besmirched their record as civil servants by indulging in strikes and in threats of strikes?
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the country has the feeling that neither the party opposite nor the T.U.C. has given much support to finding a solution without a strike and that they have paid only lip-service to what they claim to believe in—appropriate arbitration and acceptance of an incomes policy?

Mr. Bevins: Quite clearly, the Govern-men hope that the strike will be called off and that negotiations will follow.

Mr. Mason: It is sufficient at this delicate stage to say that, recognising that throughout the dispute the Union of Post Office Workers has been prepared to negotiate, we earnestly hope that the proposals put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Postmaster-General prove conciliatory enough to be a sound basis for successful negotiations, as it is only on that basis that there is any prospect of peace in the Post Office.

Mr. Randall: Is the Postmaster-General aware that, after the Private Notice Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), a few days ago, there was left a clear indication that it was the wish of the House that

the right hon. Gentleman should make a more imaginative offer? I hope that the offer now made is imaginative and that some success may come out of these discussions.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an offer to the postmen would be worth while and that he would recoup himself handsomely with an asset which would be very valuable at the moment—the restoration of good will.

Mr. Bevins: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. At this stage, it would not be in the public interest to reveal details of the Government's proposals.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Sir C. Taylor: On a point of order. As it involves major Government policy and affects many towns, would my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government consider answering Question No. 78, by leave of the House, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: It is no good addressing me on a point of order on a proposal of that kind.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 27TH JULY—Supply [26th Allotted Day]: Report.
A debate on the Family Doctor Service until 7.30 p.m., when the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Votes.
Afterwards, a debate on Concessionary Fares, on an Opposition Motion.
Motions on the Thames Conservancy Orders, and on the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations.
TUESDAY, 28TH JULY—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, which it will be proposed should be taken formally to allow debate on an Opposition Motion on Housing and Rents.
Motions on the Local Government Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely, and Huntingdon and Peterborough (Amendment) Orders.
WEDNESDAY, 29TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
The Opposition propose to debate the Method of Selection for Secondary Education, until about seven o'clock.
THURSDAY, 30TH JULY—Motion on the Summer Adjournment.
Afterwards we propose to facilitate consideration of the Motion on the Vestures of Ministers Measure.
FRIDAY, 31ST JULY—The House, if it has been so resolved, will rise for the Summer Adjournment.
During the week further Lords Amendments will be brought forward for consideration.

Mr. Wilson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman inform the House, first, when the Government intend to bring forward—under the procedure which we have discussed with the Prime Minister—the Motion in respect of the forthcoming retirement of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), and on what day we shall debate it?
Secondly, do the Government intend to publish the Lang Report next week? When do they propose to find time to debate it? Will they now immediately institute an inquiry, with full powers, to deal with the affront to the House, for at least the fifteenth time this year, in that Ministry of Aviation business, Ministry of Aviation secret reports, Ministry of Aviation proposals to the Cabinet, whether ultimately accepted by the Cabinet or not, have been privately leaked to a single newspaper for reasons which I can only surmise?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Prime Minister will be making a statement next week—the Prime Minister knows that I have raised this matter with him—about an inquiry to be held into this long succession of security leaks to the Press from one Ministry?

Mr. Lloyd: The Motion relating to my right hon. Friend the Member for

Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) will be tabled on Monday, and on Tuesday that and a related Motion will be considered.
It is hoped that the Lang Report will be published early next week. The House will gather from the nature of the programme which I have outlined that there is no time for a debate on it in Government time. The right hon. Gentleman's series of questions about an inquiry is not for me, but I will take note of his questions and convey to my right hon. Friend what he has said.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this is an absolutely intolerable way to treat the House of Commons? Is he aware that when a Report came from a Select Committee, showing a wanton waste of public money, the House was fobbed off with a promise of an independent inquiry? Is he aware that since that Report has been received by the Government, and has been in the hands of the Minister of Aviation, it has been deliberately leaked to the Press? In these circumstances, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman intend to get rid of his responsibilities by saying that there is no Government time to debate it? Will he ensure that the House does have time to debate it, and in Government time, since it was a Government waste of money and a Government leak to the Press?

Mr. Lloyd: Without accepting anything the right hon. Gentleman has said—and the Report is to be published as soon as possible—it is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to be cross with me, but in fact there is no Government time to made available next week.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of my Motion on the London Opera Centre, will there be the usual opportunity on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill to raise matters in which hon. Members are interested?

[That this House notes that on two occasions the Arts Council's briefing of its spokesmen in the controversies over the Carl Rosa Opera Company and the London Opera Centre in the House of Lords was inaccurate and that the Treasury Ministers involved refused an impartial inquiry; that the statement by Lord Cottesloe that the reasons given


in the Press for the decisions about the resignations of Miss Joan Cross and Miss Anne Wood were not communicated to the Governors and the Administrator before they sent in their resignations, was not correct, since the facts are that all the reasons for their decision to resign had been under constant discussion for the past three years with the former Chairman, the present Chairman, and the Director; that, shortly after the Centre was opened in September, 1963, and at the invitation of the Chairman of the Board, a routine of weekly meetings was established between the Chairman and the Misses Cross and Wood, at which all current matters concerning the Centre were reviewed, and the problems of the building, heating, ventilation, etc., were discussed, as was, in particular, the dilemma presented by the Centre's lack of a stage; that Miss Cross and Miss Wood found themselves urging the need for the students to give public performances but at the same time were adamant that the lack of a raised stage, the poor acoustics and the unsuitably large size of the auditorium made performances before the public positively disadvantageous to students, whose future careers often depend on such performances; that they naturally assumed that the gist of these discussions was placed before the Governors and the Administrator, particularly as many of their views appeared to be shared by the Chairman and Director, so that the fact that these dissatisfactions never apparently reached the Board came as a complete surprise to them; and that this House accordingly resolves that the terms under which the Arts Council is empowered to spend public money without adequate parliamentary control should be revised.]

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Abse: Will time be given to debate the Motion in my name and the names of other hon. Members, which deals with the failure to give the House an opportunity to deal with two Clauses which were in the Divorce (Scotland) Bill?

[That this House regrets the decision of the Speaker in refusing to call new clauses 1 and 2 on the consideration of the Divorce (Scotland) Bill [Lords], as amended.]

Mr. Lloyd: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's Motion. He has put his point of view on the record, but I can promise no time for it next week.

Sir C. Taylor: When does my right hon. and learned Friend expect to receive the Allen Report and when may we expect to debate it?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not receive the Report and, therefore, I cannot answer that question.

Mr. Woodburn: It was very interesting to hear when we are to disperse next week. I did not gather, from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, when we are to reassemble for the new Parliament. Can he tell us?

Mr. Lloyd: I hope that the interest of the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied when he sees the Motion which is to be tabled.

Sir B. Janner: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention been called to the serious state of heavy lorries which the Minister of Transport himself declared to be appalling? Out of 70 vehicles examined by an all too small a number of inspectors, only 23 were found to be fit? Will he give the House an opportunity next week to discuss this matter, which is of extreme importance to the life and limb of people who use the roads?

Mr. Lloyd: I appreciate the importance of the matter. There are certain opportunities next week which are not under my control and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be fortunate in one of them.

Mr. P. Williams: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm his detailed answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) about the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, that, although it is nominally being taken formally, it will be an opportunity when any hon. Member can raise any subject he wants?

Mr. Lloyd: I want to make the position quite clear. The Second Reading will be taken formally. On Wednesday, the remaining stages will not be taken formally. There will be a debate until seven o'clock, on the initiative of the Opposition, about the method of selection


for secondary education, but after that hon. Members will be able to raise such subjects as they want.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the Leader of the House aware that I could hardly believe my own ears? Is he really telling us that in the last week of this Parliament he is still not to allow us to debate the leasehold problems of Wales? Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be prepared to allow us to discuss this issue, instead of the Vestures of Ministers Measure, on Thursday?

Mr. Lloyd: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will speak on both if he can.

Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether we are to have a statement on the Padmore Report and whether the Government have decided that we are to construct a nuclear ship?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot answer that question today.

Mr. Driberg: Does the Leader of the House realise that, when he says that there is no Government time next week, he is asking for various important matters which have been mentioned to be raised on the Motion for the Summer Adjournment on Thursday, which will present certain procedural difficulties and might also have the effect of driving the Vestures of Ministers Measure on towards late in the evening, a situation which has caused difficulty in the past, as he knows?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, therefore, reconsider this matter and see whether it is possible to come to an arrangement by which that Measure could be allowed, perhaps, two or three hours, by agreement with its sponsors, leaving three or four hours at least to spare on Thursday for some of the other important matters?

Mr. Lloyd: There are opportunities not only on Thursday, but also on Wednesday and on Friday for consideration of other matters. I shall consider any proposition for an agreed timetable for the Vestures of Ministers Measure.

Sir C. Taylor: Reverting to my previous question about the Allen Report,

I was aware that the Leader of the House did not personally receive such Reports, but can my right hon. and learned Friend say when the Government will receive it?

Mr. Lloyd: No; but certainly not next week.

Mr. Wigg: Is the Leader of the House aware that, for the Government to receive the Lang Report and for parts of it then to be leaked, without any opportunity for a debate to take place, is an absolute outrage? Does he realise that, when he tells the House that the Consolidated Fund Bill will be taken formally on Tuesday, he is being a trifle optimistic and that he cannot hope for any co-operation from any part of the House if he, as Leader of the House, behaves in a way which outrages every democratic principle?

Mr. Lloyd: The proposition that the Second Reading should be taken formally comes from the Opposition.

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the Leader of the House agree to enter into discussions through the usual channels to see how a debate on the Lang Report and its premature disclosure can take place next week? Is he aware, for example, that, if the Summer Adjournment Motion went through with reasonable speed, we could have reasonable time for a debate on the subject on Thursday before coming to the Vestures of Ministers Measure? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree to have talks through the usual channels, or will he force us to put down a Motion of censure on the Minister of Aviation?

Mr. Lloyd: The rather threatening noises at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's question make it, perhaps, a little more difficult, but we shall discuss the matter through the usual channels.

Mr. W. Hamilton: As there is absolutely no interest whatever in the country in the vestures nonsense, will the Leader of the House undertake to scrub that item out of next week's business and let us discuss matters like the Lang Report and something just as serious, though not as large as some, namely, the Downing Street scandal, which has never yet seen the light of day, although I hope that it will next week?
Secondly, can the Leader of the House say whether the Prime Minister will be making another speech next week? It is six weeks since he made one in the House. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that, when I made this suggestion last week, he replied that my desire for punishment seemed to be obsessive, but does he, nevertheless, realise that we should like to hear the right hon. Gentleman speaking as Prime Minister on a subject of public importance for the last time in the House?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman's desire for punishment is certainly consistent. As for the possibility of a debate, I have nothing to add to what I said to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Abse: Is the Leader of the House aware that, in refusing to give time for the Motion to which I referred, he is acting almost without precedent? As the Motion criticises Mr. Speaker, apart from being of profound constitutional importance, and arises out of what Mr. Speaker himself described as a unique situation, is it not right that it should take precedence over nonsense such as Bills of the character of the Vestures of Ministers Measure?

Mr. Lloyd: If it is a unique occurrence, I do not think that it can be of tremendous constitutional importance for the future. I did consider the terms of the hon. Gentleman's Motion and, as I have said, I can find no time for it next week.

Sir J. Arbuthnot: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that, having put on the Church Assembly the duty of legislating on Church matters while reserving to itself the right to accept or reject resulting proposed legislation, Parliament has the duty expeditiously to deal with Measures which are brought before it from the Church Assembly?

Mr. Lloyd: The point put by my hon. Friend is one which I have had to take into account.

Mr. Lubbock: Reverting to the subject of the Lang Report, will the Leader of the House say whether we could, as an absolute minimum, have a statement next week outlining to the House the result of inquiries which, I hope, he will make between now and next week into how

these revelations in the national newspapers arose?
Secondly, if it is quite inevitable that we rise for the Recess at the end of next week, will the Leader of the House consider whether we could come back to the House for one day during August specially to have a debate on this vital matter?

Mr. Lloyd: I have to try to meet the wishes of the House as a whole. Points of view have been put to me today, and I have said that we shall discuss the matter through the usual channels.

Mr. M. Foot: Reverting to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), will the Leader of the House explain more fully why he has taken this attitude? Does not he realise that a serious situation for the House of Commons is raised if Mr. Speaker informs the House, as he is compelled to do, that the only way for the matter to be dealt with, when there are criticisms of his decisions, is for a substantive Motion to be put down, and the Leader of the House refuses the right of the House to have time to discuss it? In such circumstances, he is, in effect, denying to back benchers the right to pursue what Mr. Speaker says is the only way in which such questions can be dealt with.
Although there may have been one or two precedents for such a Motion being left on the Order Paper undiscussed, I believe that, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the precedents, he will discover that overwhelmingly it has been the desire of the House, and, I should certainly think, the desire of Mr. Speaker also, that any such Motion should be debated. Will the Leader of the House, therefore, explain why he has taken the extraordinary decision not to allow time for a debate?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot agree that my decision is extraordinary, having regard to the terms of the Motion and the general circumstances. I have nothing to add.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the completely evasive answers which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave last Thursday to questions from this side of the House about the location of Scotland's new university—when he was evading the


issue, was not he aware that there was a Question for Written Answer on the Order Paper to which the Government replied on the following day?—is it not necessary that the right hon. and learned Gentleman reveal the rôle which the Government have pursued in locating this university? It is their responsibility. As it is up to the House to hear their case, and hon. Members ought to have an opportunity of deciding what the Government's attitude was, having regard to the national interest of Scotland, will the Leader of the House think about providing some time to discuss the matter?

Mr. Lloyd: It is not for for me to go into the merits of the matter.

Mr. Rankin: I am not going into the merits.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman accused me of evading certain issues and, I think, almost of misleading the House. I did not know that the Question for Written Answer was on the Order Paper, and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is helpful sometimes to be given a warning that a Question is to be asked so that one can investigate the position. I did not know of the Question on the Paper. Anyhow, the desire was for an answer to be given speedily, and an answer was, in fact, so given. It is not for me to pronounce on its merits.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. May I have your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker? At the beginning of Questions I submitted to you notice that I wished to take further the Answer which I received to my Oral Question No. 76 yesterday from the Minister of State for Education and Science. You said earlier that this was a matter which I could not raise. Could you tell me why an Oral Question which is reached is subject to notice of further action but an Oral Question which is not reached, and the Answer to which is not seen until the following day, is not subject to notice about further action?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has an opportunity of giving notice in the office. He would not have to give it orally on a subsequent date.

Mr. Rankin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does not your

Ruling indicate that there is discrimination between the treatment of Oral Questions which are reached and Oral Questions which are not reached?

Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Member is entitled to give notice—it is a historical survival—in relation to an Oral Question which is reached. Otherwise, notice is given in the office, in the ordinary way.

Mr. Mendelson: In view of the reports which have appeared, particularly in Washington, concerning Her Majesty's Government's new proposals on experimenting with ideas on the multilateral nuclear force, and since next week might well be the last week during which this Parliament is in session, would the Leader of the House convey to the Prime Minister the request that he should make a statement some time next week on Her Majesty's Government's position in these negotiations and give a firm assurance to the House that the Government, which might well go out of office during the next few months, will not, in the last days of an old Parliament, commit the country to any affirmative policy on British participation in an international multilateral nuclear force?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly convey the request. I can relieve the hon. Gentleman's anxieties about the Government going out of power.

Mr. M. Foot: Referring once again to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), will the Leader of the House take this into consideration? If the practice grows that when a Motion criticising the Chair is put on the Order Paper the Leader of the House refuses time for its discussion, it will alter the relationship between the authority of the Chair and the rest of the House of Commons. Therefore, it is a serious step which the Leader of the House is taking when he assumes the authority to deny to back benchers the right to express their opinion on the decisions of the Chair.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that, in his view, he has not taken an extraordinary step, but does not he realise that that is precisely the case that he would be called upon to present in a debate on the matter in the House? Therefore, in my judgment, he is arrogating to himself a right which he does


not possess. However, would he at least agree to refer this matter to the Select Committee on Procedure so that it might report to the House whether it is proper that when Mr. Speaker tells hon. Members that the only way in which they can deal with a matter is to put down a substantive Motion the House should be denied the right to discuss it by the individual decision of the Leader of the House?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly do not think that my decision should be regarded as a precedent. I have to have regard to all the circumstances, and one of the circumstances, as the hon. Member well knows, is the fact that the House is to adjourn next Friday. It is a question of time. Having regard to all the circumstances, I came to my decision. I certainly do not think that it should be regarded as a precedent.

Mr. Foot: Is the Leader of the House really claiming that one of the reasons why he decided that a matter of this significance should not be discussed was that there was not time? This is a question affecting the relationship between Mr. Speaker and the rest of the House of Commons. There can be no matter concerning the House of Commons which should have pre-eminence over that. This is a question about the authority of the Chair. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has no right to deny the House of Commons discussion on that. It is all

laid down in Erskine May and in the Constitution. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is taking upon himself powers to which he has no right. I ask that he should at least consider the matter and refer it to some other people so that they might consider it. He certainly has no right to decide for the House of Commons whether we should be allowed to discuss this matter or not.

Mr. Lloyd: As I say, I have to have regard to the amount of time available. However, I will certainly consider further the suggestion regarding the Select Committee on Procedure.

Mr. Abse: May we know next week from the Leader of the House the result of his consideration? He must realise that he has already given two distinct reasons why we are not to discuss this matter next week. The first—and he treated a matter of this importance facetiously and far too lightly, in my view—was that this was an exceptional occurence and was not of fundamental importance. Secondly, he suggested that it was a matter of time. If it is a matter of time—and we all understand the realities of the situation—may we have an assurance that he will make a statement next week dealing with the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot)?

Mr. Lloyd: I have said that I will consider it.

Orders of the Day — MALTA INDEPENDENCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.6 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
First, I should like once again to thank the House for facilitating the passage of this Measure. I realise that the short notice has caused inconvenience to hon. Members, and I am grateful to them for agreeing to the rearrangement of business.
This Bill follows the general pattern of other independence Bills. Clause 1 provides for the transfer of sovereignty on a date to be appointed by Order in Council. Clauses 2 and 3 deal with questions of British nationality which arise as a result of Malta attaining independence. Both these Clauses are common form in independence Bills. Clause 4 provides for the amendment of existing laws to take account of Malta's independence, and repeals earlier constitutional enactments which will be replaced by the new constitution.
I do not think that I need at this stage go into further detail about the provisions of the Bill, but I have no doubt that the House would wish me to say something about the new constitution and the Defence and Financial Agreements which were concluded earlier this week.
As the House knows, we held a conference in London in July last year which was attended by representatives of all the Maltese political parties. The conference had to deal with two main issues: the question of independence, and the question of the form of Malta's future constitution. The Nationalist Party, that is to say, the Government party, and the Malta Labour Party, the

main opposition party, which together held 42 out of the 50 seats in the Legislature, both expressed a strong desire for early independence. On the other hand, the three smaller parties, which together held the remaining eight seats, expressed their opposition to independence at the present time, primarily on economic grounds.
In the circumstances, we thought it right to accede to the request of the two main parties, which together polled 76 per cent. of the votes cast in the last General Election, and we fixed a target date for independence not later than 31st May, 1964.
When we came to discuss the second question, namely, the form of the future constitution, the line-up of the parties was quite different. The Nationalist Party and the three smaller parties favoured a constitution broadly on the lines of that which exists at the present time. On the other hand, the Malta Labour Party asked for substantial amendments designed to reduce the special position of the Roman Catholic Church.
As it was not possible to resolve these differences at the conference, I asked the Prime Minister of Malta to have further consultations with the leaders of the other parties, with a view to submitting to me agreed constitutional proposals. However, after several months, Dr. Borg Olivier informed me that the parties had been unable to reach any agreement. I accordingly invited him and the leaders of the other parties to discuss the position further with me in London last December. But it still proved impossible to secure agreement.
After further fruitless consultations with the other parties in Malta, Dr. Borg Olivier proposed that the British Government should settle the constitutional question on their own authority. In view of the ecclesiastical character of some of the issues involved, I was, not unnaturally, reluctant to undertake this task. Consequently, the Prime Minister of Malta decided to hold a referendum, in which the electors were asked to vote for or against the constitution for independence which had been proposed by the Government of Malta and endorsed by a majority of the Legislature.
As it turned out, the referendum added nothing to what we already knew about


the division of opinion in Malta. Moreover, the results were somewhat confused by the fact that the smaller parties, which, on the whole, favoured the constitution proposed by the Government of Malta, did not feel able to vote for it lest their votes should be interpreted as implying approval for independence. They consequently advised their supporters to abstain or to spoil their ballot papers.
After careful consideration, I formed the opinion that the results of the referendum were not sufficiently conclusive to justify basing important decisions on them. I therefore came to the conclusion that the only way of settling the matter was for me to work out a solution acceptable to the Parliament of Malta, and, of course, also to the British Parliament here.
The procedure that I adopted was to compare the constitution proposed by the Government of Malta with the constitutions which have been approved by this House for other British territories, and then to make such amendments as seemed necessary. After careful examination, I was satisfied that, with three rather important exceptions, the constitution proposed for Malta by the Government of Malta conformed with the principles which we have applied elsewhere.
The first of these exceptions was the absence of the usual Clause prohibiting discrimination on racial or religious grounds. This has now been inserted, and the House will find it at Clause 46. The two other points were concerned with the application of the code of human rights to the Roman Catholic Church. In several Commonwealth constitutions we have, where necessary, included provisions to take account of special circumstances in the country concerned.
In Malta, there are, clearly, special circumstances of a religious character. It is one of the most devoutly Catholic countries in the world, and when the people of Malta voluntarily entrusted the island to King George III they secured a pledge that the special position of the Church would be preserved. It is, therefore, right that, in the same way as we accorded to the Moslem religion a special status in the constitution of Malaya, we should likewise accord a special status

to the Roman Catholic religion in the constitution of Malta.
It does not, however, mean that the constitution should place the Church above the law. That is why I did not feel able to approve Sections 48(10) and 48(11) of the Malta Government draft, which would have had the effect of exempting the Roman Catholic Church altogether from the application of the code of human rights. Both these provisions have, therefore, been deleted.
As I indicated in my statement on Tuesday, the Government of Malta have expressed the wish that Malta should become a monarchy after independence with Her Majesty as Queen, and they have informed me of their intention to seek membership of the Commonwealth. I have no doubt that this reflects the feelings of the great majority of the people of Malta, who have a great respect for the Crown, and a special affection for Her Majesty, who is so well known in Malta.
It is intended that, immediately after independence the British Government and the Government of Malta should conclude a Defence Agreement and a Financial Agreement, the texts of which have been published. The Defence Agreement enables British forces to remain in Malta for a period of 10 years after independence, and accords to them, by and large, the same military facilities which they enjoy at present.
Changes in the world situation and the redeployment of our forces have reduced our military requirements in Malta. Nevertheless, we greatly value the facilities which Malta provides for our Navy, Army and Air Force, and we are glad that we shall be able to continue to use them.
The presence of British forces in Malta, and the money they spend, makes an important contribution to the economy of the country, and, despite the rundown, the income from this source will continue to be substantial. These arrangements will, therefore, be of mutual benefit to both countries.
I turn now to the Financial Agreement. When British territories become independent, we usually offer them some financial aid for economic development. But we rarely enter into a firm commitment for more than one or two years ahead. However, in view of the fact that Malta


is concluding with us a 10-year Defence Agreement, we think it reasonable to conclude a Financial Agreement covering the same period. For the first three years, this aid will be unconditional During the subsequent seven years, it will be dependent on the continued operation of the Defence Agreement.
The Government of Malta sought from us a firm commitment to provide aid for their recurrent Budget, for as long as it may be needed. They foresaw that such a need might exist until 1970. Subject to parliamentary approval, we have undertaken to provide budgetary assistance up to £600,000 for the current financial year 1964–65. Provision for this has been included in a Supplementary Estimate which has already been presented to the House. I told the Prime Minister of Malta that we could not enter into any advance commitment, as regards budgetary aid for future years, but would be prepared to consider any request for such aid, which the Government of Malta might wish to make from time to time.
We have, however, agreed to one measure, which will to some extent relieve the Maltese Budget. At present, most of the goods imported by our services are subject to normal Customs duties. After independence, most of these imports will be duty-free, as is usual where armed forces of one State are stationed in the territory of another independent country. However, in view of Malta's difficult budgetary position, we propose, again subject to Parliamentary approval, to make good to the Malta Government each year the Customs revenue which they would otherwise lose as a result of the change in these arrangements.
Since we shall have other opportunities later today to express our good wishes to the people of Malta, I will end simply by saying that, if the House will allow me to speak again at the end of the debate, I shall be happy to give any further explanations for which hon. Members may ask.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: The presence of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) always reminds us of his dynamic leadership in the war. Perhaps it is fitting that he should be present today,

when we recall the part that Malta played in helping the people of this country and of the free world in the struggle for freedom. I am sorry that I have to say this now, but it really is a tragedy that after all the tribulations on Malta's advance to independence the House should be passing today a Bill of such great importance, having had virtually no time to study the arrangements which will apply to Malta when the Bill is passed. But this is characteristic of the Government in their dying days.
They have shown—as we saw again this afternoon—a total disrespect for this House, and they have certainly failed to take into account the wishes of the people of Malta. I noticed on Tuesday that the Leader of the House, when challenged about the timing of the Bill, said that it had to be got through the House. It is a matter for the House of Commons and not for the Leader of the House to determine whether a Bill is to be got through or not. This is all rather indicative of the way in which Governments behave when they have been in power too long.
To some extent what we are having in this country is democracy by embarrassment. The Government have acquired such a thick skin that they seem to be quite insensitive to the damage which they are doing to the best traditions of parliamentary procedure and colonial evolution. My hon. Friends and I intend to put down an Amendment to provide for elections to take place in Malta before independence. Under the present arrangements elections are not due to take place until the spring of 1966. We have put the Amendment down because there is serious doubt whether there is a mandate for independence on the terms proposed. Certainly, there is no mandate for independence being granted under the present Government.
At the beginning of the year the Secretary of State decided to test the opinion of the people of Malta. He knew, as we all knew, that two points were at issue—the question whether the people of Malta wanted independence, and, if so, under what kind of constitution.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: It is quite impossible to get the Amendments at the Vote Office. Are there any available?

Mr. Bottomley: We have not had the Second Reading. When we have we shall be able to table Amendments.
I was saying that the Secretary of State put two questions—whether the people of Malta wanted independence and, if so, under what kind of constitution. It would have been simple to ask these questions separately and my hon. Friends and I asked him to do so. Instead, he permitted the Maltese Government to run both questions together. The consequence is that the result of the referendum was almost unintelligible, even if it had been decisive. If one asks an ambiguous question one gets an ambiguous answer. That happened in this case.
Let us consider the figures. They show that 22 per cent. of the electorate did not vote either "Yes" or "No", and most of these did so intentionally to indicate their disagreement with the choice posed. Of the electorate as a whole, only 42 per cent. voted "Yes", 35 per cent. voted "No", and about 22 per cent. stayed away, either because they disagreed with the question or because they did not wish to record their vote. This cannot be regarded as a mandate for the kind of unconsidered action which the Government are proposing to take.
The Secretary of State appointed observers to watch over the referendum and the campaign. He has not yet made their report public. I ask him whether he intends to do so. It is quite wrong that the Secretary of State should ask Parliament to pass this Measure. The mandate for it was a referendum on the conduct of which he is keeping the official report secret. This is an affront to the House and it does not take much thought to presume that if the Secretary of State is keeping the report secret it must be unfavourable. If it is, it means that not only is the referendum itself called into question, but also the elections of 1962, when the present Government of Malta were elected. Let us recall that on that occasion no observers were present.
There is ample reason to say that the best traditions of British colonialism require that before independence is granted under these circumstances new elections should be held. One of the saddest features of rushing this Bill

through the House is that the opposition parties in Malta have had no time to study the changes which have been made since the constitution was presented for the referendum. I see that in The Guardian today there is a report from Valletta, which says that most newspapers in Malta do not think that sufficient time has been given for consideration of the Bill.
The Times of Malta, which recommends an Anglo-Maltese connection, complains in a leading article that political leaders here, as well as the Press and the people, knew nothing of the vital matters of economy and security outlined in White Papers which were not available in Malta.
It is very bad when we have the responsible Press joining in this criticism.

Sir Peter Agnew: Is it not fair to say that the interests which the Times of Malta represent are against independence anyway, under any constitution?

Mr. Bottomley: I have quoted that newspaper as an example, but most of the newspapers criticised the decision. I could quote others if necessary, but I thought that it would be sufficient to quote one The Guardian says that most newspapers support this view. In my view, it is quite intolerable that this kind of thing should happen. It is most unusual, and perhaps even unique.
The Secretary of State will say that he was familiar with the views of the opposition parties and that he had to arbitrate and reach his own decision. But he should have provided the opposition parties with an opportunity to make known their views on the decisions he had reached, and those decisions should have remained provisional until that time. It is ludicrous that only last night representatives of the opposition parties came to London, with no knowledge of what was intended. They had no idea of the kind of constitution that we in this House were going to support and pass. In the case of other Colonies coming up for independence this has not been the case. In other cases, there was an elaborate conference. That came first. It went over the grounds of disagreement before the Secretary of State reached his final decision.
Why has all this rush taken place? There was no rush last August, when


the Secretary of State sent the Maltese parties bask to Malta for discussions amongst themselves. We on this side of the House certainly said that it would be fruitless, and so it proved to be. There was no rush at the beginning of the year when the right hon. Gentleman insisted on a referendum being held instead of elections. Why should the Maltese people suffer because the Secretary of State has been loaded with so many portfolios that he cannot do justice to any of them?
I now want to turn to the various documents to which the Secretary of State has referred describing the arrangements for Malta's independence. Let me deal, first, with the Defence Agreement. This is a good agreement and I do not want to say anything critical about it. I only want to issue a note of warning. It is possible to conclude a Defence Agreement which is so good that it is bad. This agreement does not provide for consultation with the Maltese Government in the event of Britain wanting to use Malta as a military base for active purposes. This contrasts with the Malaysian Defence Agreement which provides for such consultation. If the Maltese Government are content with such an arrangement, it is certainly not for us to criticise them, but I would remind the House that it is sometimes better to be careful not to write into agreements features which it is known in advance might provoke opposition in a few years' time.
I turn to the Finance Agreement. This is a generous one. There is no need to go into details here, but I would invite the House to notice that there is a definite assurance of money for a period of three years and a conditional agreement for a period of seven years. The condition is a continuation of the Defence Agreement. We shall notice that, later, there is a magic figure of three years in another context. The Finance Agreement has the same flavour as the Defence Agreement. For example, it is provided that the British Government will have a very definite say in the set-up and working of the Malta Development Corporation. Of course, we know that we are giving a lot of money, but in other countries we have

not normally taken this kind of power in return. So why have we done so in the case of Malta?
I now come to the principal document which the House ought to consider, namely, the draft constitution. This is a long draft and the House has been given about 36 hours in which to make up its mind about it. If hon. Members think that that is wrong, they should consider the people of Malta, who have been given no time at all to consider it. Of course, that is not unusual. The draft constitution which was submitted to the people of Malta for a referendum in May was equally rushed through the Maltese Legislature, and there was quite inadequate time for consideration. But surely this is no reason why the Secretary of State should try to import such habits into this House.
The constitution is basically the same as the draft submitted in the referendum. The main improvements, as the Secretary of State has explained, are the deletion of two clauses in the human rights section which would have excluded the Church from the provisions which would generally have applied to all other persons and bodies in Malta. But there is a new Section inserted at the beginning of the constitution, Section 2(2) which, although much weaker, goes some way in the same direction.
The other principal change is the inclusion of Section 46 which prohibits discrimination in laws or in actions done under laws. This is a standard provision in many independence constitutions these days, and the exceptions made in the second half of the Section are equally standard. The exceptions would omit the exclusion of Ministers from the Civil Service. I should mention that they would equally permit the exclusion of other groups from the Civil Service, but, as I have said, this is a standard provision and we on this side of the House can only express the hope that the Maltese Government will not abuse it.
We now come to the most important matter of the electoral law. This is not part of the constitution and is a domestic Maltese ordinance. We on this side of the House have proposed that the section dealing with undue influence should be identical with that contained in Section 101 of the Representation of the People Act, which operates in this country. This


proscribes the threatening of temporal or spiritual injury. The Maltese Act, by contrast, speaks of "material or moral injury".
I think that it would have been much better to change this wording to be the same as that in the United Kingdom Act. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will tell us that he thinks so, too, but that the Government of Malta were not prepared to agree. I think that this change, however, would have been a very small return for the granting of £50 million in aid.
So far, I have mentioned the points which are new in the constitution. I should now like to refer to some which have not been changed, but which, in my opinion, are also unsatisfactory. The fundamental rights provisions are to have no effect on any existing legislation for a period of three years. They are to be applied only to new legislation during that time. The House will have noticed that this is the second reference to a period of three years. The Secretary of State, of course, will say that there is nothing significant about that—but one will recall that the next elections in Malta are due in the spring of 1966, and the effect of Section 48(7), therefore, is that the fundamental rights provisions will affect no existing law until after the next elections.
The other matter to which we on this side of the House attach importance is the freedom of broadcasting. Broadcasting in Malta is governed by Maltese ordinance, and that ordinance confers on the broadcasting authority the duty to satisfy itself that nothing is included in a broadcast which offends against religious sentiments. This provision has been invoked to prevent the broadcasting of passages which to any person in this country are quite unexceptionable.
Section 122(1) requires the broadcasting authority to observe due impartiality, but—and this is very important—the following subsection shows that its application will be without prejudice to any other duties conferred on it by any existing law. It is laid down in Section 6 of the constitution that where there is a conflict between the constitution and other law, the constitution is to prevail. This is a serious weakness, as this is apparently not to apply to broadcasting, and the existing law is to prevail. I hope

that the Secretary of State will tell us later whether the official observers whom he appointed to oversee the referendum in May were content with the broadcasting arrangements.
There is one final point which I wish to make about the constitution. It has been drawn up by the Maltese Government and vetted by the British Government. This is unusual. It is normal for such documents to be drawn up either by the Colonial Office or by an independent authority. I would not accuse the Secretary of State of writing in these periods of three years, to which I have already referred, in order to fit in with the next elections in Malta, but it would not be surprising if that thought had occurred to other people who have a direct interest in winning the next election.
The Bill does not state any date for independence, but it is proposed to proclaim a date by Order in Council and the Government now say that they propose to do it at the end of September. This, once again, is a decision which smacks of rushing things through to prevent any possibility of discussion on the serious faults in the present arrangements being reopened. The Bill does not provide that the House shall have any opportunity to discuss the draft constitution. It will be made by the Government by Order in Council. I want to make it clear that we on this side of the House say that the Government themselves have the full responsibility for the content of the constitution.

4.40 p.m.

Sir Peter Agnew: One of the principal criticisms regarding the Bill is that it has been rushed, that insufficient time has been given for study not so much of the Bill as the annexed documents which, in due course, will come into force when the Bill is passed.
I, on the contrary, want not only to welcome the Bill, but, at the outset of my remarks, to pay a great tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for all the patience that he has exercised in the long-drawn-out efforts made to reach the maximum amount of agreement between the various parties in Malta. The fact that there has not been agreement with the principal Opposition in Malta is the fault of no one. The fact that there has been agreement between


the Government of Malta, as represented by the Nationalist Party, and my right hon. Friend, representing Her Majesty's Government, is due to the spirit of give and take and the patience which has been exercised by both Governments.
Especially do I think that the Government of Malta have been very public-spirited and far-seeing in agreeing to a new position for the established Church in Malta, the Catholic Church, which would place that Church in a slightly less strong position than it enjoys under the existing Constitution. I am somewhat surprised that the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) should suggest, on behalf of his party, that there ought to be new elections before the new constitution comes into force. I wonder whether he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have taken into account that if there were new elections they would be held under the existing Constitution, which is less liberal than the new one we are now considering; and that the risk which they feel to be real—that the Catholic Church in Malta could exercise undue influence—would be even greater if elections were held now than at any time in the future, when the Bill has become law.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Is it not a fact that under the provisions of the Bill the limitation on the rights about which the hon. Member speaks would not come into force until after three years and that the next elections in Malta would automatically be held next spring?

Sir P. Agnew: I do not think that that is so.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Yes, it is so.

Sir P. Agnew: The new constitution, when it comes fully into force, contains provisions which, to some extent—but with the full approval of the Vatican authorities—go some way towards diminishing the absolutely overall and above-the-law position that the Catholic Church has seemed to have under the present Constitution. [HON. MEMBERS: "In three years."] I do not wish to pursue that point.
There is not much time in which the Bill can be passed through all its stages

and I do not wish to delay its passage. However, I wish to make a few remarks about the provisions in the financial agreement dealing with Baileys (Malta) Limited, which, at present, holds a lease on the dockyard. It is, of course, well known that the matter is sub judice, because Baileys is in a position preliminary to engaging in litigation with Her Majesty's Government. I do not wish to prejudge that at all; it would be quite wrong to do so, or to say anything about it. But I wish to point out to my right hon. Friend that, so far as I can interpret the Act of the Malta Parliament which is in force, and under which the administration of Baileys was transferred to a council, there is provision for reasonable moneys to be made available to Baileys (Malta) Limited with which to undertake the preparation and expense of litigation with Her Majesty's Government, should that eventuality regrettably come to pass.
I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether he will say something about how those rights will continue to be available to Baileys (Malta) Limited when the Independence Bill becomes law, and whether, in the meantime, representations have been made to the Government of Malta to implement that legislation in favour of Baileys (Malta) Limited.
This constitution is similar in many respects to those which we have passed into law during the lifetime of this Parliament, and the period of Conservative Governments to give independence to many territories. I would describe it as a model for a Christian Mediterranean State. If the House decides to send the Bill on its way to become law, it will forecast the time when our people and the people of Malta will enter a new era of continued association in the spirit of the original declaration under which the people of Malta made plain, in 1812, that they wished to be associated with the British Crown. I wish the Bill well.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I think that we all, on both sides of the House, recognise that we have a special responsibility for Malta. We begin on common ground by saying that it is our desire to help Malta towards independence as quickly as possible. Speaking for myself and, I believe, for some colleagues in the House and some who are not with us


now, when, a few years ago, we considered the future of Malta, recognising its desire to be independent, we realised that if independence is to have any meaning it must be able to lead to a viable economy.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: I cannot hear. Speak up.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Of course, the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) did not come to the same conclusion. If he cannot hear, perhaps he will come a little nearer.
I came to the conclusion, as many hon. Friends did, that perhaps the best solution, as it appeared to many of us and also to many people in Malta, would be the proposal which we put forward at the round table conference on integration. That now is a matter of history. The Secretary of State quite rightly said that the Government have been generous to Malta, but Malta has been our arsenal for a century and a half. Its economic life has been determined entirely by us and it has been bent completely to our defence needs.
This is very important. There was no attempt in Malta to build up the country and give it a sound economic structure and a diversified economy. Its economy was based on the naval dockyard and the provision for our Armed Forces. It was exactly like any of our own naval establishments. We realised how difficult it would be to make a change. It would be very unwise for any of us now, or for people in Malta, to think that it will be easy after the transitional period, if not during that period, to establish in Malta an economy which can sustain its people as they deserve to be sustained, with an ever-increasing standard of living.
I hope that we shall realise that. I hope that we shall realise that we may have to go on paying for many years before we can pay our debt to Malta for the services that she has rendered to us in the past. I welcome the provisions of the Bill so far as they go, but whoever is here in 10 years' time, if we can say that we have been able to build in Malta an economy which can sustain the country without aid from us we shall still have a debt to pay Malta.
I do not propose to speak at length about the constitution, but I wish to ask

the Secretary of State one or two questions about it. Generally, such constitutions are agreed to nem. con., without a Division, and we send out our good wishes to the territory for its future. But the Secretary of State knows perfectly well that when we have done that in other cases it has been because, in the main, the people in the territory concerned have been of one mind and unanimous about the constitution. For them, it has meant independence and the constitution generally has been accepted by them. Therefore, they start under the best auspices, but the Secretary of State knows that that is not true of Malta.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it is asking a great deal of this House to pass the Bill in one day through Second Reading, Committee and Third Reading. He did not tell us why it is absolutely essential to do this. If there were a unanimous desire in Malta for this step to be taken now under this constitution, I would understand it, but that is not the case. This constitution is not an agreed constitution, agreed between the Government in Britain and people representing the majority of those in Malta. Let us get this clear, for it is very important.
We can count up the numbers in the parties, but in the referendum less than half the people of Malta voted for the constitution. The House should have these facts put before it. In the referendum less than half the people voted. I have never been in favour of a referendum, but that was the method adopted and I believe that the number of people in Malta who voted was 42 per cent. For that reason, if the House of Commons agrees with the Bill we shall be adopting a constitution which has not been approved by the majority of the people in Malta.
I therefore hope that what my right hon. Friend the Member for Middle-brough, East (Mr. Bottomley) said will be considered. I shall not discuss the point now, because we are to have a Committee stage when, presumably, the Chair will accept a manuscript Amendment on this vitally important question. We shall want to consider very carefully some of the provisions of the constitution. If the Government are determined to do this all in one day, we shall want


a longer period for the Committee stage than for the Second Reading stage.
Speaking for myself, and, I think, for many of my colleagues, whatever we put into the constitution one thing is certain, that if the constitution is to work it must give reasonable satisfaction to the Malta Labour Party. I do not put this forward as a party matter. The Malta Labour Party is a strong party and Malta has strong trade unions, built in our traditions, which are very influential.
They possess a most dynamic leader. I have had many arguments with Dom Mintoff, who is a man of tremendous energy and great drive. Whether in government or in opposition, his great talents will be concentrated on solving the great problems which face his country. This was a quite clear impression gained in my one visit to Malta. I say this with respect and without any religious bias. I was brought up in the Nonconformist tradition and I try to remember, when I discuss these questions, that I should show tolerance to others, but we know perfectly well that the one thing which would make any constitution work would be reasonable cooperation between the leader of the Labour Party in Malta and the archbishop. They are the two most influential persons in the island. If they are at loggerheads, for no matter what reason, there will not be an easy time for Malta. At one time the archbishop was a member of the Labour Party in Malta. He has that tradition, whatever the reason.
The Secretary of State said that the Bill must be pushed through now, at the end of this Parliament. Let us be quite clear: if we dispose of the Bill today, and Malta becomes independent under this constitution, that will be the last that we shall hear of it in this Parliament. I ask the Secretary of State: does he think there is not a strong case for one or two things? First, is there not a case for reconsidering whether an attempt should be made to make some changes in the constitution in order to go some way to meet the Labour Party in Malta?
In The Times this morning I read a statement made by Miss Barbara. I make reference to it because it is rather

important. When we went to Malta, as members of the round table conference, she was Minister of Education. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was a member of the round-table conference and he has had great experience in education. He would agree—indeed, he said that he was deeply impressed by the work that Miss Barbara was doing for education—that she is a responsible citizen.
I know of Miss Barbara's work and of her sense of responsibility, and I read what she had said. I do not want to quote it, but I ask hon. Members to read it. They should read what she said about this constitution. That is not a very good omen, and that is why I have ventured to speak in the debate, because I think that the worst service which we could give to Malta and the worst way in which we could repay the debt which we owe to Malta—in fact, we can never repay it—would be to carry through, in the last days of this Parliament, a Bill providing for independence under this constitution when at least one responsible citizen said in this country last night that she will try to smash it.
This is a serious matter. It may be that we can do something about it in Committee, but I ask the Secretary of State why the Bill must be rushed through now. Is it not worth while making another attempt? Are we to say that it is beyond our wit to introduce something into the constitution which will meet the desires—some of which I believe to be the legitimate desires—and the demands of the Labour Party without in any way doing offence to the Church, which is the last thing I want to do? Surely it is worth trying.
If that is not possible, I hope that the Secretary of State will accept the manuscript Amendment when my right hon. Friend moves it. I shall vote for it, and I hope that the Committee of the whole House will carry it. In view of the fact that it is known to us that this constitution has not the support of half the people of Malta, I believe that it ought not to be brought into operation before they have a chance to speak again about it and before there is a General Election.
We are reaching the final stages of what, in years to come, we may regard as a very fine chapter in the history of this country—the transformation of an


Empire into a Commonwealth. We have reached a stage in which, with one or two exceptions, all the countries which are on the road to independence can look to a successful future. I was pleased to note that the Secretary of State is beginning discussions with Gambia and glad to hear that in those discussions consideration is being given to the association of Gambia with Senegal.
When I was Secretary of State, and for years afterwards when I spoke on this subject for the Opposition, I was worried by the fact that many of these smaller territories would come to political independence but that this independence would turn sour since it could not provide them with the standard of living they wanted because they were small in population and in resources. That is one reason why I was inclined in respect of Malta—and only in respect of Malta, because of the special reasons which attach Malta to us—to think that the best way would be to integrate Malta into this country economically and politically.
That has gone. Nevertheless, it would be very difficult to associate Malta with any other territory within the Commonwealth in that way or in the way in which we had hoped to bring together all the countries in the West Indies. I am glad to see a proposal that Gambia shall be associated with Senegal, which is not in the Commonwealth at all. We are meeting this problem of how we are to satisfy the natural political desires of the people in the smaller territories, who have as much right as anybody else to independence, and at the same time to make independence mean something to them.
Let us not spoil this record. On the whole, it is a good record, although we have had arguments about it now and again. Malta is the last place in which we should make the mistake of spoiling that record. I should be very glad if I could say this evening that I gave my full support to the Bill and to the constitution because it met the desire of the Maltese people for independence. It is because the constitution has not the approval of the majority of the Maltese people that I ask the Secretary of State to think again and not to rush the Bill through unnecessarily.
We may be at the end of this Parliament and of this Government, but it is not the end of Parliament or the end of this House. It would be a very bad thing if at the end of this Parliament, the longest Parliament we have had for a long time, we made a mistake of this kind. It would be a mistake to think that we must rush this through because we are about to adjourn the House and to prorogue. If there were agreement in Malta, I should be prepared to rush the Bill through in one hour. Because I realise that there is not agreement, and because that disturbs me, I ask the Secretary of State and the House to pause and to think before we take this final step.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: Both right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have addressed the House particularly on the question of the timetable, and I think that some fairly direct things ought to be said on that subject. The workings of the House are such that, quite rightly—I make no complaint about it—the balance is tipped to the advantage of the Opposition for the time being in terms of the time and the working of the House. Let us have this spelt out in quite clear terms. This discussion is taking place on this timetable with the agreement of the official Opposition. That is why the Deputy Leader of the Opposition rose to the Box when the new business was announced by the Leader of the House, and used the phrase "We are acquiescing" in this timetable because of certain considerations—which he then outlined.
It will not do—I say this in all friendliness to the right hon. Gentleman—to seek to fob off his personal responsibility as a member of the inner team. If he and his colleagues believe that this is wrong, they should say so plainly and definitely and act upon it. The facts are that if this were done in this House and at this time, the Bill could not be got through, and we all know it.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: If the hon. Member intends to quote my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition he should quote the sentence in context. My right hon. Friend said
… we have acquiesced in the order of business which the Government are asking for


on the basis that it is their responsibility and not ours … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 282.]

Mr. van Straubenzee: I said that there were certain words added, but the fact is that if the Opposition were not prepared to co-operate—I do not think that that is too strong a phrase—in the timetable suggested, and if they said so frankly or in the private discussions which we all know take place through the usual channels, then the Bill could not be presented to the House at this late stage in this Parliament.
We all know these to be the facts of the situation. I think that we are imposing very considerably upon the House, as has been said frequently from the Front Benches, but in so far as there is a responsibility it behoves us to take a corporate responsibility and not to seek to place it merely on the shoulders of one side or the other.
The facts of the matter are that if we do not deal with the Bill in this extraordinary way—and none of us would choose to deal with so important a matter in this way—we shall delay the independence of this island long after the date in respect of which the Government of the day gave their word that the Maltese should have independence and long after the date on which, after many weeks of patient negotiation in London, these details have eventually and slowly been hammered out.
I do not for a moment suggest that this is the ideal way of dealing with a situation of this kind. What I am asserting is that, given the situation of the present time as we all know it to be, this is the only practical method of dealing with the problem before us.

Mr. Bottomley: It is because this is the only practical way of dealing with it that the Opposition have co-operated, but, if we have the opportunity, we propose to present an Amendment which will show that the people of Malta, as well as this House, will have a fairer opportunity of discussing the matter than they are having now. Perhaps the hon. Member will come into the Opposition Lobby on that Amendment.

Mr. van Straubenzee: It is entirely within the right hon. Gentleman's right and those of his hon. Friends to press

for this manuscript Amendment to be put before us and to argue it, as doubtless they will. But if he was so critical of the timetable his method of showing it was to make it plain in ways that he and I know are available and which would have prevented the Bill being presented to us this afternoon. Those are the facts of the situation as he and I know them to be.
I want to say a word or two about the constitution. The Bill is short, the documents annexed to it are lengthy, and, quite understandably, there has been comment about the religious or church aspect of the constitution. I want to say something about that and I do so from a wholly uncommitted point of view. I owe no allegiance whatever to the great church which is specifically mentioned by name in this constitution, and I cannot conceive of myself ever doing so. I say that with friendly respect to hon. Members who, I know, are.
When in recent months I had the opportunity of discussing these matters with the Archbishop of Malta, who has been mentioned in the Press generally and already mentioned by name in this debate, I am bound to say that I changed some of the preconceived notions with which I went to that interview, and I interviewed subsequently in considerable detail some of those who advise him.
I must say that in reading the Press over here, and listening to comments from people outside, I got the impression that I was going to meet, to put it in plain, blunt language, a very bigoted old man. I came very quickly to realise that I was dealing with somebody of a very different kind indeed. I believe that just as one of the most remarkable features, which I am sure we can all agree, of the present ecclesiastical scene is the greater understanding and the infinitely greater tolerance between Churches than ever before, so, equally, this has its counterpart in matters of the kind which we are now discussing in Malta.
I believe that if we look at the way in which over these negotiations—which, if The Times is to be believed, were assisted by the Vatican—the entrenched positions, as some believed them to be, have moved, we see that even in circles which were believed to be immoveable the spirit of tolerance and give-and-take has prevailed.
We have only to consider for a moment the proposed Clauses as they were placed before my right hon. Friend, naming a particular Church as being above the operation, for example, of the civil rights provision, and a look at the Clauses on discrimination where special provisions had been made, to see that there has indeed been a spirit of give-and-take in these negotiations.
I want to plead that in our subsequent discussions those who, like myself, are not committed members of this particular and great Church will perhaps be careful to avoid saying things which, in the present spirit of public opinion and church opinion, will gravely hurt those who, I think, are moving fast in a way which may produce results far greater than any of us here can possibly foretell.
I plead for the general spirit of toleration in the working of this constitution. At the same time, I ask for clarification on two specific points. I should be grateful to know, in reference to Clause 41 of the proposed constitution, that there is secured, as I think is the case, for other great Churches in Malta, smaller, of course, in numbers and likely never to be the Established Church, the absolute freedom of worship and of the tenure of their buildings.

Mr. Dick Taverne: How can the hon. Member have confidence that this freedom of conscience is assured when there is an exception that the requirements of public order may interfere with the practice of this freedom of conscience?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to Clause 46.

Mr. Taverne: No, to Clause 41.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am dealing with Clause 41. I was in the middle of asking my question, and it will be helpful if the matter can be clarified definitely. For all I know if the hon. Gentleman knows Malta, as I suspect he does, he will, for example, remember the great Anglican Cathedral at Valletta, recently greatly restored by the efforts of many people in the island. Before we part with the Bill we should like to be assured that written into this constitution—what I personally believe, from personal contact and experience, is the intention of the leader of the majority Church in Malta—is the

absolute freedom to maintain their religious way of life and the tenure of their buildings. We should like to be sure that subsection (2) does not derogate from that in any way. This point was rightly seized on by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne).
I come now to the point which I thought that the hon. Member for Lincoln was on concerning Clause 46, namely, the question of freedom of marriage. I, like other hon. Members, have only had the opportunity of reading this over quickly. I do not suggest that I have studied it with the care which documents of this kind merit. As I understand the effect of Clause 46, discriminatory laws are barred. "Discriminatory" in this sense is defined. It should be clearly noted that this is a new provision. It goes on specifically to provide that this bar against discriminatory laws shall not apply, for example, to any law with respect to marriage. It would be helpful to know a little more about what is involved here for members of other faiths than the great Church which is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. If this aspect cannot be fully probed here, the other place contains persons much better qualified to probe this matter.
I turn quickly to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew), the question of the docks, which are specifically mentioned in an annex to the documents we are now studying. I had the advantage in a recent visit to Malta to spend, admittedly, a short time in trying to understand something of the problems of that dockyard. I take my hon. Friend's point that we in this House must be careful, because litigation is at the moment in progress, and in accordance with our traditions we do not wish to say anything to prejudice that.
There are Members of the House who do not necessarily hold any brief whatever for Baileys Limited as a firm in England or for the Bailey family or necessarily for what may or may not have been done in Malta, which is the subject of litigation, but who, nevertheless, feel it to be part of the English legal tradition that persons accused shall be able to defend themselves fittingly and properly when charges are laid against them. I should like to be assured that this ability to defend themselves by Baileys, both as


a family and as a firm, is not being prejudiced by the hold-up of funds by the consortium at present running the docks and that Her Majesty's Government would influence the consortium to make those funds available.
I feel sure that the House knows so well that in the success of these docks may lie a significant part of the future economic prosperity of the Island. It is enormously encouraging that over the last few months they have been successful in attracting to Malta increasing numbers of tankers in particular and ships in general for repair work, fitting out, and so on, in Malta. They have discovered that they have been able to attract on fair terms ships from Northern Europe and other parts of the world because of the fortuitous circumstance that they can work upon them for many more days in the year than is possible in Northern Europe ports and also because of the fortuitous circumstance that Malta is very close to the tanker routes going across the Mediterranean and to Libya.

Mr. Stan Awbery: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the large 150-ton crane in Malta has been taken to Gibraltar and that the large floating dock in Malta is now being advertised for sale by the Government?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his great experience in these matters, will develop that argument, but it does not detract from what I have been saying about the fitting out process. I have no technical knowledge of this and do not stand before the hon. Gentleman pretending to have any. When I was able to go round the yards, I did not observe that either of those two important items of equipment was necessary for the sort of work which I have in mind, though it would be my hope that in the future these yards would extend to shipbuilding in addition to the ship repairing facilities which they now provide.
I am limiting myself to what I think is the uncontroversial statement that Malta's geographical position is such that in wise management and a wise and courageous labour policy lie the seed of much prosperity for Malta. I think that a wise labour policy in the docks

may be the key to much of Malta's success in the future.
I realise that some of the features in the Bill and the documents attached to it do not present the full case which the Leader of the Opposition in Malta would like to see presented. I echo what was said from the benches opposite in one particular. I was lucky enough to spend a considerable time with the Leader of the Opposition in Malta and would not dream for one moment of breaching the confidence of a private talk, any more than any other hon. Member would. One cannot be in the presence of the Leader of the Opposition in Malta for five minutes without appreciating that one is in the presence of a man of very great ability. It is surely to the advantage of the island that this should be so.
In view of the many positions which, in his public utterances, the Leader of the Opposition in Malta would have regarded as quite unnegotiable by the Church, but which have, in fact, proved to be negotiable, one might well ask whether some of the positions which he regards as entrenched on his side might not now be negotiable, too, and whether a new start might not be made. It might be reasonable to ask that both sides of the Legislative Assembly, as it is at present, should work together on the constitution, as it will be if we pass the Bill and documents annexed to it.
Lastly, defence. We must face facts squarely. There is an element of trust here between the new State of Malta and the United Kingdom. No one who has been in Malta for more than a few minutes can fail to realise that British forces at present, and as far as I understand it under the terms of the agreement, are inextricably woven into the island's life. There is no question in Malta of doing what I will loosely call "a Cyprus", of retreating, if necessary, to an enclave. British forces are in among the life of Malta. They have in the past occupied, and indeed occupy at present, some of its finest buildings, many of which they are now progressively evacuating. There is provision in the documents for the care of some of those majestic buildings.
It will, therefore, be not so much a matter of the paper which we are discussing today. It will be a matter of


trust between two nations whose outlooks, although so far separated, have much in common. They are both Christian nations. They will both start their association at least under monarchical government, under parliamentary government. Whereas the one will have to have certain safeguards written into its Constitution, the other has them by long practice and tradition. I would personally hope that both the present party in office and any future party in office in Malta, as here, will appreciate that the interests of the two countries will coincide in future as closely and as effectively as they have in the past.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede: We are discussing today a matter of very great delicacy, and practically everything that we have to say and much of what we shall do have really been predetermined for us by the forces of history. I was a member, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), of the Round Table Conference that visited Malta in 1955 when we were discussing the issue of the integration of the group of islands in the Government of this country, and at a time when, certainly, actual independence was not thought of or so much as discussed.
We are dealing in Malta with a country that appears to have no indigenous resources. It has not even got a water supply. One of the things that the Round Table Conference reported in paragraph 50 was this:
The first need, in our view and in the opinion of most witnesses, is to improve and expand the water supply. There are no rivers in Malta; and although the average rainfall is 20 ins., the facilities for collecting and storing rainfall are dangerously inadequate, even for present needs. The salinity of the lower water table is rising rapidly, and in years of low rainfall a serious shortage occurs of drinking water and of water for agriculture and industry. Work is in hand to catch and store water in the upper water table, and geological surveys are being undertaken to find other underground sources. We were informed that this should result in a marked increase in present supplies and in the avoidance of serious shortages in years of low rainfall. But, if the present highly unsatisfactory and dangerous position is to be remedied, and if there is to be any hope of improving agricultural output and encouraging the establishment of new industries much work remains to be done and further capital must be spent on water schemes.

An island which at that time had about 300,000 people living on it and to which such a Report, in my view, was slightly flattering to the actual position, obviously presents very great difficulties in all problems of Government. And, of course, we did not come into this island in the way that we came into most of the countries for which we have responsibility.
Over 150 years ago it was reported that Napoleon Bonaparte on his way to conquer Egypt, secured Malta for himself, as a half-way house to his Military and Marine requirements.
He stayed in Malta for eight days, during which time he robbed all the Churches and Treasury and imposed many 'Libertè Egalitè' ideas not wholly acceptable to the inhabitants, and which after he sailed, were protracted and amplified by the French; beyond the people's religious endurance.
Encouraged by the success of Admiral Lord Nelson at Aboukir, a local unheralded and quite spontaneous insurrection compelled, what was left of the 4,000 French garrison under the veteran General Vaubois, after a terrible butchering from the Maltese, to seek shelter behind Valletta's fortifications then considered the strongest in Europe. Whilst they were kept besieged for two years, many a French sortie was made and repulsed by the Maltese, to the confusion and often with loss of much life and many captures of French veterans. Some two weeks after the rising, Nelson was approached by a Maltese delegation to help against the common enemy. Meanwhile the Maltese rebels had organised themselves into a disciplined body and all principal and proper civic authority was established.
They were short of provisions and practically without arms and ammunition for the carrying on of the siege to a successful end but eventually some 1060 French muskets captured at Aboukir, and cartridges and flints were sent by the British to the inhabitants, besides this a blockade by sea was maintained practically all the time throughout the siege of Valletta, by the Portuguese and the British and some 400 marines were landed.
Those two years siege caused hardship to both sides. Famine and disease were rampant amidst the Maltese, and the French scarce of victuals, with no hope of reinforcement, and no news but the decline of French influence in Europe, were getting naturally very depressed especially so when after fifteen months Brigadier Graham landed with 800 fresh British troops, followed some months later by General Pigot with the 48th and 2nd Bat. of the 35th Regt.
All these setbacks made Napoleon's trusted General Vaubois think of capitulation. Negotiations between the Maltese and Vaubois had already started and offers of hostages were made by the French as security for the large sums due to the Maltese; eventually these sums were accounted for by the French Government to the British, but these sums never reached Malta to the present day.


They then approached King George III with a request that the island might become a British Colony and they equally made one stipulation, which gives considerable trouble today. They insisted that they must be allowed to retain the Roman Catholic religion and to have freedom to operate it in the island. That was accepted, and the Clauses which some of us find distasteful in the draft Constitution originated from that. A pledge was given in 1802 to the inhabitants of Malta, when they asked to become subjects of King George III, that they would be assured of the continuity of their religion in the island.
As much as I dislike some of the things that are in the Constitution, I cannot say—the whole world of nations has to be respected—that we can ask to be excused from carrying out the pledge that was given in 1802. Some of the things which I find most difficult to accept in the Constitution come from that promise and I do not think, if it is ever pointed out to the British people that the distinct promise was given in specific terms that they should have these assurances, that there would be long objection by the majority of British public opinion to it.
It must also be recollected that the British, while they respect the religions of other people, expect their own to be properly treated when it comes to the kind of things that have, on occasion, gone on in the past in Malta. There distinguished English ecclesiastics have been treated with very great contempt and ignominy by the ecclesiastical authorities in Malta. I hope that in return for what is done in the Constitution greater tolerance will be shown in Malta itself to people of other than the Roman Catholic faith, because, undoubtedly, this is a cause of very considerable misgiving to a large number of people whose cooperation will have to be sought if this island is to become viable.
I am a believer in the dual system which we have for education in this country. I agree with what the late Archbishop Temple said of it, that its very duality is something that is worth preserving. Let us be quire certain of this. The Constitution, to which this debate is leading us, makes no hesitation in saying that all the State-supported education in Malta must be Roman Catholic and that only Roman Catholic teachers

may be employed, not merely in the schools giving the teaching but in any part of the education service of the island. There is no talk in the Constitution of the parents having any rights in the matter. When I think of the negotiations I have had in my time with Roman Catholic authorities in this country urging me to respect the feelings and rights of parents, I am sometimes a bit perturbed when I find how different their attitude is when they are in a country in which they are in the majority.
I mention these matters not to arouse controversy but to indicate that the Government have run grave risks in the concessions they have made in these respects in the draft Constitution. I hope that by the time we get to the point where we shall be discussing the Order in Council establishing the Contitution we shall be able to have some assurances that in the light of the concessions which have been made we can expect some reciprocal arrangements on the part of the Catholic authorities in Malta in their dealings with the population who are not of their own faith.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) raised the question of mixed marriages and the rights of persons who are married by other than the Roman Catholic rites in the island. The absence of any facilities for divorce and so on—which, as far as I can see, are not mentioned in the Constitution—are undoubtedly matters of considerable grievance to a number of Maltese persons, not Catholics, and certainly to anyone living in the island who does not happen to be of the Roman Catholic faith but wishes to marry a member of that faith. I had a case of that in my own family, and I know the difficulties and bad feelings which are caused. I hope that in view of the way in which the Government have handled this matter and their obvious desire to fulfil, not merely in the letter but in the spirit, the concession of 1802, we are entitled to expect some reciprocity in the future Government of the island when it comes under the new Constitution. I regret that we have got nothing effective today.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Wokingham about the reasons for the Government adopting the attitude they have, and I accept what my right


hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said the other day about acquiescing. Acquiescing does not involve co-operation or approval, and I do not regard myself as approving of things which the Government have done merely because I acquiesce in helping the Leader of the House out of the difficulties he has got into by postponing the General Election from March to October. His difficulty is that he wants to get this through for the Secretary of State; and it does not appear likely that, from the point of view of this Parliament, he will get that unless the procedure the Government have imposed on the House is followed.
I hope that in his future negotiations the Secretary of State will bear in mind that we are labouring under grave difficulties and that we have to take even this constitution in two stages. We are passing legislation today to make it feasible. At a later stage the right hon. Gentleman will have to bring forward, and get confirmation of, an order to establish the new constitution. I want to assure him that some of the things I have hinted at in my speech will remain in the minds of a number of people who would expect to have greater reassurances than they have so far had.

Mr. Sandys: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to be under any misapprehension. The constitution will not require the approval of the House.

Mr. Ede: No, but it will have to be submitted to the House and the right hon. Gentleman cannot say what will happen to anything when it is submitted to the House. We will doubtless regard it as a good and proper Order, but he must not be surprised if some of my hon. Friends think the mere fact that he approves of it entitles us to be very suspicious as to what its full effect will be.
We are embarking on providing a constitution for an island which was civilised when our ancestors were walking about wearing woad. It is impossible to do anything to ensure that anything other than the dictate of the Minister will be considered in the Parliamentary processes which are involved, but any Amendment moved from this side in Committee to enable us to get at any rate some chance of giving others better opportunities of considering this matter will certainly have my support. I protest most strongly at

the way in which this important matter—this historical matter involving considerations of issues which many of us regard as matters of high principle—has been handled by the Government in this way. Of course, one cannot expect anything better of this lot.

5.48 p.m.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: It gives me the greatest possible pleasure to say that I agreed with almost everything the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said—that is, apart from some of his concluding sentences. I cannot recall ever before agreeing with him so widely.
I find this an unhappy occasion. I have an hereditary and an almost lifelong personal concern for Malta. I have had many, and still have a few, friends of whom I have been very fond in the island. As the right hon. Member for South Shields pointed out, this has been a long story. He spoke of some of his experiences at the Round Table Conference. I was there, too, and, without going further back into the history of this matter, I will content myself with saying that this has been a long story of difficulties, misfortunes and the spreading of resentment on both sides of the sea. At one time to get things sorted out even tolerably was almost too much to hope for. So now we have come to a point—and I beg my right hon. Friend to listen to what I am about to say—which is tiresome, I can see that, but which I really think deserves an answer. I do not wish to protest—that is not a word I would use—but I feel, almost as much as any hon. Member on the other side, shaken and rather frightened by the haste of this procedure.
I am not trying to obstruct it or even to oppose it, because it seems to me that the only explanation of it can be—and if the Under-Secretary or the Minister of State does not mind, I do particularly want to speak to his right hon. Friend more than anyone else—the only defence and explanation must be the strong feeling of the man who knows most about the present situation that (a) in the present situation this is the best that could be hoped for—and I am prepared to agree there—and that (b) if this were not done, I will not say today or tomorrow, but before the Summer Recess, very probably it would


never be done at all. If I may say so without appearing to be too much taking the view of a superior officer, I think that we were entitled to have an exposition of what I have just said, if that is the real explanation, or of whatever is the right one, at the beginning of the debate, and if we had had it perhaps I could content myself, but I hope now that we shall get it at the end of the debate.
This is a very important matter indeed. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields reminded us, we are under pledge to these people to maintain—and it must be in the sense which the words would have for them and not in the sense which the words would have for us—to maintain their religion; no doubt even to them the sense of those words is not quite the same now as it was five generations ago, but it is in their sense that we are pledged. That, as a matter of honour, makes it extremely difficult for us to try to use any more influence or pressure than, presumably, we did in order to do what would have seemed to be reasonable but would have seemed to be something contrary to that pledge. As a matter of honour, that must have great weight with us.
So it must, I think, as a matter of convenience. We were reminded by the right hon. Member for South Shields—and I am most grateful to him for the help my eloquence is getting from him—quite rightly, although I was not sure he got the right year because I have not looked it up, of Napoleon, and of Napoleon's behaviour, and the behaviour of the French, and the result. It was a most remarkable result—an almost unique event in history. Here were people anxious for the preservation of their way of life, whatever its poverty, and we cannot imagine it now, and they sought protection for that, and most particularly for their religious and ecclesiastical habits, from what was then the great Protestant Power. It is a very remarkable thing.
On the point of convenience also it is really an unanswerable consideration that we must be scrupulous in this matter, because we know that it was the bad behaviour of Napoleon himself and of his troops that caused the result of their first being besieged and then

expelled, and of having the humiliation to see what they had taken put under the British flag just because they had taken it. It is of enormous importance that we should remember these things.
I do not want to speak for long. I think perhaps I should stop, and I shall not be many minutes longer, but this is a matter on which one cannot easily say anything without saying a great deal. What does democracy mean in the terms of these papers, and are all relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Matese Government, however the two may shift and alter, to be with the memory that the difficulty of democracy is that we cannot maintain a democracy unless we allow people inside it not to be democratic? That seems to be one of the essentials, if not the essential, and that makes the whole question of public security, and the relations with what must continue to be, in some sense or other, however we alter the words, the protecting Power, all very difficult.
I should like to ask some small and, it may seem, merely verbal questions. I am sorry that I have not—partly, perhaps, because the topic is not to me wholly congenial—taken a very close interest in all this legislation which, as the phrase goes, turns an empire into a Commonwealth, but I see in page 23 of the Constitution before us the words:
There shall be a Parliament of Malta which shall consist of Her Majesty and a House of Representatives.
Is that common form? If it is not common form—or even if it is, but more if it is not—we deserve some explanation. It seems to me, though I do not stick to this—I have forgotten all my learning in these matters, and I do not stick to what I now say if someone has better expert opinions—that the Queen is not a member or part of Parliament, or is she? Parliament does not consist of the Queen and the right hon. Gentleman and me and a few noble Lords—does it? Or does it? We ought to be told about that.
Similarly, in page 35 we find the words:
The executive authority of Malta is vested in Her Majesty.
It was vested in Her Majesty, surely, by the bargain between the inhabitants of the Maltese Islands and His Majesty King George III. Surely, it should read


"remains vested". These are not Committee points in effect, although they sound like Committee points in form.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) if he were here, that it seems to me not possible to agree with his saying that one of the similarities between this island and that island is that we are both Christian peoples—or even as I think he said that we were both Christian States. We are not. We once were. Perhaps we were the better then, or perhaps the better now—I do not wish to discuss that now—but this is a secular State.
The principle of this State which is generally assumed in conversation, and even in technical and learned discussion, is that very man or woman who is a citizen of this State is equally entitled with every other to any legal activities, to any political activities, to any religious activities—not plainly against the law of decency, and so on—and that it is no matter whatever which of us has which sort of religion, and which of us has none. That could not seem to any Maltese to be what one would call a Christian country, and we had better think of that and not talk of our similarity in that respect.
There is another matter on which I disagree with one previous speaker. The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) told us that however long the world goes on and whatever happens to us and whatever happens to the Maltese, because, as he put it, their economic situation for a century and a half—and it is more—was conditioned by us, we therefore owe a financial and economic obligation to them and to their descendants, as far as I could hear, to all eternity.
I feel bound to say, although I know that it is not very popular in the House, that I think that in general the assumptions now uncritically made about the duty to what are called underdeveloped people, and so on, are very dangerous, and especially very dangerous to the under-developed people, if they are pushed too far. It never occurred to the Maltese in 1798 or 1801, whichever it was, that they were going to find a protector who could assure them four meals a clay, and the meals getting better

by 3 per cent. per annum on to the Day of Judgment. They had no such hopes. What they hoped was that they were going to get peace and quiet and nothing in the least like Napoleon, a radical secularist.
If we are to be told that the Government ought now to delay in order to try to get, as we were told by one or two speakers, something rather more acceptable to the Labour Party in Malta, we ought to face some of the realities about that. None of us is immortal. The Archbishop is not immortal, Mr. Mintoff is not immortal. As far as any of us can understand—and we are not frightfully good at understanding each other—and as far as we can venture to base the argument on that assumption, the leadership of the Labour Party has for long, and does now and will for long, desired to clash with what it regards as a kind of ecclesiastical authority which it believes is incompatible with the modern world, and perhaps it is.
If so, whether they would be wise to choose the modern world or wise to choose the ecclesiastical authority is not a matter for this House, but we had better be conscious of that and not think that it is because of the incompetence or wrong-headedness of my right hon. Friend that these documents are not more agreeable to the Maltese Labour Party. However far we have gone that way, and we have almost certainly gone as far as is compatible either with the morals or with the convenience of the original bargain, it would certainly seem that it would not have been far enough for the Maltese Labour Party as at present led to admit itself satisfied or even partially satisfied.
It is with the deepest regret that I find it difficult to see this—I will not insult my right hon. Friends by saying "solution", I am sure that he is wise enough to know that there are no solutions of this sort—but I deeply regret that I find it impossible to think that this arrangement will turn into something permanent and get better and better. Perhaps it will, and if so I am all for it, but if not and if I am not merely being foolish, my right hon. Friend owes a duty to the House to explain to us more fully than any of us have yet understood exactly why this arrangement had to be passed at exactly this rate of knots.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: If I may say so without offence, the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) seemed to me to be talking a good deal more cool common sense than some of the other hon. Members who have spoken from the benches opposite. He was much less soothing than some of them were about this "arrangement", as he called it. I agree with him that it will not work for long. No constitution is for ever; I doubt very much whether this one will last long.
Like other hon. Members who have spoken on both sides of the House, the hon. Member also deplored the haste with which this has been rushed through Parliament, imposed on Parliament and imposed upon the Island of Malta without any consultation—consultation, that is, after the terms had been agreed between the British and the Maltese Governments. The people of Malta, including those who do not happen to support the present Maltese Government, are presented on 48 hours' notice with a fait accompli, and the postal service in this country being what it is at the moment—a point which I tried quite wrongly, as Mr. Speaker pointed out, to raise on Tuesday as a point of order—they will not see the new Constitution or the Bill which we are discussing tonight until this House has passed it and, when the other place also has passed it, it is an Act of Parliament.
Then, at some time—and it was not clear in the exchanges between my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and the Minister exactly when—an Order in Council will be promulgated which apparently we shall not have the right to pray against and which will not require an affirmative or any other Resolution of the House. This is a process much nearer to dictatorship than to democracy.
The hon. Member for Carlton asked what was perhaps a rhetorical question about democracy. I forget exactly what he said, but he asked what these proposals had to do with democracy. I do not think that they have anything to do with democracy as most people in the West understand it. Every concession mentioned in the debate, every toning down or modification of the fantastic demands that were originally made, is immediately qualified by a number of restrictions, modifications and exceptions.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) mentioned marriage and Section 46 in the Constitution. Section 46 opens bravely enough by saying:
… no law shall make any provision that is discriminatory either of itself or in its effect.
But, earlier, the Section also says:
Subject to the provisions of subsections (4), (5) and (7) of this section … 
and it is in subsection (4) that the question of marriage arises. It is extremely difficult for those of us who are not constitutional lawyers to follow the extraordinarily involuted language in which the Constitution is drafted. If I misunderstand it at any point, I hope that the Secretary of State will correct me.
Having said that
subject to the provisions of
these subsections,
no law shall make any provision that is discriminatory",
it goes on to qualify that by saying that it
shall not apply to any law so far as that law makes provision … with respect to adoption, marriage, dissolution of marriage, burial, devolution of property on death or any matters of personal law not hereinbefore specified".
Another important qualification of that anti-discrimination provision in Section 46 of the Constitution has not been mentioned so far. It appears in subsection (5). I must read it out to the House; again, the language is appallingly complex. I do not know that it is really necessary for it to be in such complex jargon, but here it is:
Nothing contained in any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of subsection (1) of this section to the extent that it makes provision with respect to qualifications for service as a public officer or as a member of a disciplined force or for the service of a local government authority or a body corporate established for public purposes by any law.
Although the word "it" in the second line of that quotation is, in my view, disgracefully slovenly and ambiguous, it would seem that that subsection means that a person can be barred from the public service in Malta if, for instance, he is a Socialist, an agnostic, or some other kind of person who is disapproved of by the prevailing authorities.
I am very glad that the hon. Member for Wokingham raised the question of marriage, and I hope that the Secretary of State, in his reply, will clarify the position for us. Although this obviously is not the most important effect of this Constitution, it is one of the matters about which public feeling in England may easily be most anxious. We should not flatter ourselves in this House today that public feeling in England is seething with anxiety about this new constitution—I do not believe that it is—but there could easily be a number of incidents such as one which I recall which would be played up very much in the popular Press and would inflame a certain amount of ill will, which certainly none of us wants.
I recall a case which I had occasion to deal with and take up with the Government several years ago, of a British Service or ex-Service man who married a Maltese girl in England in an Anglican parish church. She then went back to Malta and he was to follow her there and settle down there with her and, presumably, raise a family. He was absolutely stunned to receive an intimation from Malta, from her or from her parents, that her marriage to him in England had been declared invalid and had been annulled by the ecclesiastical authorities in Malta. This seemed very strange to me, because I thought that the process of annulment, at least in the Roman Catholic Church, was reserved for the Rota at Rome. This, however, was apparently a process in Malta which was in accordance with the prevailing ideology.
Will that still be the position under this Constitution? I hope very much that the Secretary of State can clear up that point and also the other point which I have mentioned about what sort of people are debarred from the public service under subsection (5) of Section 46 of the Constitution.
I have used the word "dictatorship", and I do not use it lightly, because, despite the soft words uttered with complete sincerity by the hon. Member for Wokingham and others, I believe that this Constitution may well result in—I will not say the establishment of, because there already is one, but in the consolidation of a clerical dictatorship in Malta. I believe that the concessions that have

been made are practically worthless. To do him credit, I think that the Secretary of State probably did his best vis-à-vis Archbishop Gonzi and his puppet Prime Minister. If, however, one examines the concessions, they do not really amount in essence to very much.
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman was able to persuade the Maltese to get rid of that most obviously objectionable Section which was read out and which put the church or the hierarchy above the law. In negotiation, it is always customary to start by asking for more than one expects to get. I wonder whether that Section was put in, because it would be so obviously extreme and unacceptable to any British Government, with the deliberate thought that it might be expendable in the course of negotiation and that, anyway, the position of the hierarchy would be safeguarded.
Not only other Sections later in the Constitution, but the Section 2, on page 1, states:
The Religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion.
That is a point, incidentally, which is not denied by the Malta Labour Party and which the Malta Labour Party never tried to get rid of or to countermand. Of course, it could not. It concedes that the religion of Malta is Catholic; it has always said so in its public documents and policy statements.
Subsection (2) of Clause 2, however, goes on to state:
The State guarantees to the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church the right freely to exercise her proper spiritual and ecclesiastical functions and duties and to manage her own affairs.
If the Maltese hierarchy still interprets such a phrase as
proper spiritual and ecclesiastical functions and duties
in the same way as it has always interpreted similar phrases in the past, this will entitle it to intervene in elections with every bit as much tyrannical spiritual pressure as at any time in the past—as at the last disgraceful rigged election, for instance.
The Archbishop will say—that he will say it with the utmost sincerity, nobody doubts; he is passionately, fanatically sincere—"it is our spiritual function and duty to preserve the souls of our flock


from the contamination of such evil heresies as Socialism ". He knows that the Malta Labour Party is a Socialist Party. Indeed, one of the two reasons given for what I regard as the most disgraceful and cruel action ever taken in modern times by any hierarchy—the solemn personal interdict imposed on every member of the Malta Labour Party Executive, including some who were devout practising Catholics—in itself shows how very out of touch, how ignorant and how politically illiterate that hierarchy is; for this reason was that the Malta Labour Party belonged to the Socialist International.
I know that right hon. and hon. Members opposite do not sympathise with the ideas and policies of the Socialist International, but they are at least sufficiently educated to know that it consists entirely of democratic Socialist Parties, such as the British Labour Party and the German Social Democratic Party, which are the two largest member parties in the Socialist International. To impose such an interdict to bar from the Sacraments devout Catholics simply because they are members of the executive of a body which belongs to the Socialist International seems to me an appallingly cruel thing to do, and without any Christian sanction to support it.
But they did one thing even more cruel. The aged vice-president of the Malta Labour Party, who was not present at the meeting which led to the imposition of this interdict, died a few weeks or months after this event. He was refused Christian burial although he had been a devout practising Catholic all his life. His body was slung on to what they call in Valletta "the rubbish dump". His family were not allowed to have a public Requiem mass said for his soul.
This is the hierarchy to whose mercies we are now committing the Maltese people. Make no mistake about it: this Constitution can, of course, be changed. Even these moderate safeguards—which I contend mean practically nothing—can be got rid of by a two-thirds' majority. At the last election when all this tyrannical pressure, as I maintain, was exercised, the Malta Labour Party got just one-third of the votes. Although the other smaller parties, or some of them, do not agree with the Nationalist Party, on inde-

pendence—Miss Strickland does not, for instance—none the less they may all be loosely described as under the umbrella of the Church and the hierarchy. So it would be perfectly possible, once this is out of our hands, for them to engineer a tightening up of the Constitution in the interests of the hierarchy and what they, I think wrongly, believe to be their interests.
I have spoken, I fear, rather harshly. I applaud the ecumenical spirit of some of what the hon. Member for Wokingham said, but I think that he was being much too optimistic. I liked his description of Dom Mintoff and his tribute to Dom Mintoff's ability. He said how good it was for Malta that there should be such a man. I felt that there was an unspoken implication there that it was very good for Malta that there should be such a man, and that he should be permanently Leader of the Opposition. However, I let that pass.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentleman is designing to get me to my feet. He must not put words into my mouth. With him, I am sufficient of a democrat to hope that the Constitution will work and that in due time there may be changes. He must concede that occasionally that is a good thing for us all.

Mr. Driberg: I would at least agree with the hon. Member that Dom Mintoff is the outstanding political personality in Malta, but there is this head-on clash between him and the Archbishop.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Carlton that the Labour Party has ever sought a clash with the Archbishop. On the contrary, for many years, especially when Dom Mintoff was Prime Minister, it would, I think, be truer to say that both Dom Mintoff and the Achbishop were, as it were, fencing with each other, avoiding a direct head-on clash, testing their strength with secondary issues, in almost all of which the Archbishop was defeated.
For example, when Dom Mintoff was Prime Minister, he introduced rudimentary social security in the form of family allowances. The Archbishop tried to insist that these should not be paid in respect of illegitimate children. He was defeated on that, I am very glad to say.
It is not true that the Labour Party has sought a clash. The clash has been brought about by the implacable intransigence of the hierarchy, which is, I suppose, about three hundred years behind the Vatican in its attitude towards the modern world. I emphasise that because I do not want either the hon. Member for Wokingham—I do not think that he would—or anybody else to say that I have been making an anti-Catholic or anti-Roman Catholic speech. I share the tolerance of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. In many respects I revere the Roman Catholic Church. I was glad and privileged to be able to see something of the exciting development at the first two sessions of the Vatican Council.
In order to show that one can criticise the Maltese hierarchy quite severely without being accused of being anti-Catholic or anti-Roman Catholic, I would simply refer hon. Members to the letter in today's Guardian from Count Michael de la Bedoyere, one of the best known Catholic laymen in England, the former editor of the Catholic Herald and the present editor of the newsletter, Search. He has lately returned from Malta where he talked to Dom Mintoff and the Archbishop and others. He writes:
From what I heard and saw it seems to me that the antique and unique Roman Catholic Establishment in Malta was totally out of step with the position of the Catholic Church in Europe and America. … It is, then, not surprising that Mr. Mintoff, as Leader of the Opposition, has felt it to be his duty … to criticise and oppose the status of the Maltese Church upheld by Dr. Borg Olivier. I think he has done this with great bitterness, even though very many of his followers are convinced Catholics. But how can one wholly blame him seeing that he and his followers are made subject by the Church to excommunication for reading the Labour papers and, indeed, for supporting his political views?
This is what I meant when some months ago, in this House, I referred to the Maltese hierarchy as "inventing new mortal sins"—asking penitents in the confessional whether they had read a Labour newspaper and refusing absolution if they said they had helped the Labour Party in any way. Such conduct is utterly contrary to the example of the present Pope when he was Archbishop of Milan and ordered his priests not to question penitents in the con-

fessional about whether they had voted Communist, Socialist or anything else.
Count de la Bedoyère goes on:
These religious sanctions (unique to Malta, I take it) were bad enough in the past. But today, when the Catholic Church all over the world is responding … to Pope John's 'bringing the Church up to date,' the mediaeval mentality of the Maltese Church is dreadful. I cannot think that Mr. Sandys (hiding within the cassock of the Archbishop perhaps in order to get his military bases) has understood the position. The result, it seems to me, can only be an increase of political bitterness "—
and he refers to Mr. Mintoff—
who surely will one day be Prime Minister again".
I hope and believe that that is true, but one effect of this Constitution and the Bill—and no doubt an intended effect—will be to "rig" the next elections, whenever they are, in such a way as to prevent Labour from coming to power there. This is a thoroughly bad Constitution and, therefore, this is a thoroughly bad Bill.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has spent the whole of his speech on the politico-religious problem of the George Cross island. I do not think that this is Malta's real problem. Although I agree that both politics and the religious position have to be discussed in some detail, the real problem facing the island is economic.
In 1802, Malta placed herself voluntarily under British rule and for 162 years has been used as a British and Commonwealth base. From our defence forces she sustained her economy until, in 1957, my right hon. Friend, then Minister of Defence, introduced his White Paper on the replanning of defence. Then it was clear that the British defence forces in Malta were to be run down. We have to consider the effect of this because we are discussing the defence agreement and the financial agreement as well as the Constitution, and these two agreements are of vital importance to the future of Malta.
The Report of the Round Table Conference on Malta, published in 1955, said, in paragraph 10:
A third of Malta's national income is derived from payments by the United Kingdom Service Departments, and a further important part is indirectly so derived. A


quarter of the working population is employed on or in connection with defence activities. About 90 per cent of Maltese imports are paid for by expenditure in Malta of United Kingdom Departments or by direct financial aid from the United Kingdom Treasury.
A few years later, in 1963, the Governor, in his now very well known speech to the parish priests at Candlemass, said:
Our national income is about £45 million a year mostly based on, and generated by, spending from the British Defence Services. We only export £5 million worth of goods, but our imports cost us £29 million. The money to pay for this we earn from the Defence services.
That is the position of Malta's economic dependence on the British defence forces.
The rundown started in 1963 and will end in 1967. By 1967, about 20,000 people could be out of work in the George Cross island directly due to the rundown of the British forces. This must be prevented at all costs and I believe that the Bill and Agreements will do much to prevent the disastrous effect of the rundown and to generate a new economic future for Malta. The Governor, in his speech, said
The logic of the future presents us with problems and possibilities. Our problems are jobs, income and revenue; our potential lies in agriculture and horticulture, in the Dockyard, in new industries and in tourism; our outlets lie in emigration and employment in Europe; our challenge is Independence.
This, of course, is the challenge we are discussing.
The problem is that, for the past many hundreds of years, Malta has always been protected by the dominant power in the Mediterranean, be it the Knights of Malta or Great Britain. The Knights, and then Great Britain, have had to subsidise its economy. The big question now is whether Malta, soon to become independent, can stand on her own feet. Can she become viable economically? We can draw some conclusions from the first five-year plan which ended in December, 1963. I want to refer to some figures because they give us a basis on which to judge the future economic potential of Malta as she proceeds to independence.
British assistance for the first five-year plan was £35 million, which included £7¼ million for civilianisation of the dockyard. The plan will result in 42 new industries and 4,600 new jobs. This goes

some way to taking up the slack created by the rundown of the Services. It represents capital investment of £6½ million, of which over 50 per cent. was private capital attracted from outside. In other words, the assistance we were able to give generated private investment from outside and by the end of 1963—these are the latest figures I have—31 out of the 42 new industries had started production. This has already meant 2,720 new jobs and a total production order of over £3 million; also six of the 31 new industries have already had such success that they have started expansion programmes.
This only shows what can be done provided Malta has financial assistance to set her on the road to the change-over from a service to a civilian economy. The dockyard is, of course, the largest employer and the best training ground for apprentices. The completion of civilianisation of the yard will be of great assistance—I understand that this should be early next year—and the yard will continue to employ about 4,000 people. It is obvious that the dockyard must remain competitive with other Mediterranean yards if Malta is to prosper economically.
Another matter referred to in the Governor's speech was tourism, which has increased threefold since 1959. Whereas there were 1,750 hotel beds in 1963, there will be 4,000 by 1966. Here, again, Britain has helped by a grant of £1¼ million towards tourism in the first five-year plan. New hotels, the casino opened last week and tax concessions to those who want o retire to Malta will all help to generate Malta's economy.
I believe that the strategic importance of Malta is increasing rather than decreasing. Events both in Libya, Cyprus and other parts of the world have shown that Britain still has a great interest in Malta as a defence base. The Times yesterday headed its leading article on Malta, "Expensive Independence". Of course, £50 million may be considered rather a lot to give a Colony on entering the road to independence. Indeed, I believe that this is the highest per capita population grant given to any Colony.
There are, however, good justifications for this expenditure in the links with Malta and the historic assistance given


by Malta to Britain and the Commonwealth for so many years. It is a repayment of the debt we owe to Malta. Those are the remarks I wanted to make about the economic problem which is, I believe the fundamental issue for the Maltese people. However, it would be wrong to disregard the political and religious problems which have figured so largely in speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Hon. Members have referred to the Declaration of Rights of 1802, but I do not think that the two Clauses of the Declaration which refer to religion have been quoted. I believe that they should go on record because they were provisions of the agreement entered into by the Sovereign with the people of Malta. Clause 6 reads:
That His Majesty the King is the protector of our holy religion, and is bound to uphold and protect it as heretofore; and without any diminution of what has been practised since these Islands have acknowledged His Majesty as their Sovereign to this day;
Clause 7 states:
The interference in matters spiritual or temporal of no other temporal Sovereign shall be permitted in these Islands; and reference in spiritual matters shall only be had to the Pope, and to the respective Generals of the Monastic Orders.
The Constitution recognises, as hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise, that Malta is a Catholic country. I do not mean that in the sense that one says that France is a Catholic country, for about 99 per cent. of the Maltese people are practising Catholics. The new Constitution establishes the Roman Catholic religion as the religion of the country. It thus recognises the promises made in 1802. I am very glad that, with the agreement with the hierarchy in Malta and with the agreement of Rome, the additional clauses which appeared to put the Church above the law have, by agreement, been removed. One cannot possibly maintain, although hon. Members opposite have, that this will lead to an ecclesiastical dictatorship. No fewer than 16 Sections of the Constitution deal with the fundamental rights and freedom of the individual.
Some of these issues were raised by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) who said that teaching in State schools was to be teaching according to the Catholic religion. But that

in no way prohibits schools of other religions being set up, and it applies to State schools because Malta is a Catholic country. There are schools of other religions in the dockyard and elsewhere in Malta. The Constitution insists on the appointment of Catholics in State schools only for giving religious instruction, and that is a reasonable provision. It does not insist that all teachers must be Roman Catholic.
One wonders why there has been such hostility in the speeches of hon. Members opposite, at any rate in that of the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), to the Constitution which are echoed by the Opposition in Malta. When he was in office, Mr. Mintoff supported integration. The best solution for the island might well have been for it to be linked to this country. However, it did not turn out like that and I doubt whether Mr. Mintoff himself really wanted integration. When it was given to him and when he was offered large financial support, he upped the bid every time and finally demanded a blank cheque which made nonsense of the integration proposals.
To judge from the Maltese Labour Party's suggested amendments to the Constitution, Mr. Mintoff seems to want to create a lay State which is a republic outside the Commonwealth. That is not what the mass of the Maltese people want. He speaks of the present Constitution being against the Maltese Labour Party. I do not want to read many of the amendments suggested by Mr. Mintoff, but there is one which is illustrative of the kind of party political issue in which he involves the Church. The Amendment is:
Insert in section 25:
(5) 'The Police are empowered to enter places of worship even during the performance of sacred functions and stop the ringing of bells or other nuisances which may disturb public order during public meetings'.

Mr. Driberg: rose—

Mr. Wall: I know the reason for this as well as the hon. Member does. Church bells have been rung in many villages in Malta without the permission of the ecclesiastical authorities. It has been done to disturb public meetings taking place outside the local church. But should we try to legislate for this kind of thing in a Constitution? That seems to be reducing the Constitution to a farce.
Another important issue has been the electoral law, mentioned by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley). As it stands, the electoral law is exactly the same as it has been since 1924. If the changes are so important, why did Mr. Mintoff not make them when he was in power? It is a pity that the subject of religion has been brought into party politics rather as a red herring. I regret it and I am sure that every other hon. Member does.

Mr. Driberg: When the hon. Gentleman suggests that we have dragged in that question as a red herring for reasons of party politics, does he not appreciate that it is absolutely central to the Constitution, apart from anything else?

Mr. Wall: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I was saying that the quarrels in Malta are largely party political and that all political parties have dragged in the Church as a red herring to detract from their opponents' point of view. It is better, as in this country, that the Church should be left outside politics.
We should remember that Mr. Mintoff and the Malta Labour Party appear to want Malta to be a lay republic outside the Commonwealth. I am sure that all hon. Members hope that Malta will not persist along that path—I do not necessarily mean along the path behind the Malta Labour Party but along a path which would take Malta away from the Church, away from the Crown and outside the Commonwealth. One hopes that the quarrel will be ended and that all sides will realise that everybody in Malta has to get together to make a success of independence. I hope that the ecclesiastical authorities will withdraw the interdicts which the hon. Member for Barking mentioned and which were placed on certain members of the executive of the Malta Labour Party, so that Malta can start on the path of independence with a clean sheet and with the sanctions of either side withdrawn.
I hope that the statement in The Times, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Llanelly, does not represent the view of the Malta Labour Party. I hope that all five political parties in Malta will agree to co-operate

under the new Constitution and to build up a strong Catholic State in the Mediterranean which is a full member of the Commonwealth.
I hope that the Maltese will have faith in the future of their own island. I am told that there is £100 million of Maltese money invested outside the island. I hope that now that Malta is becoming independent the Maltese will invest in their own industry and in the future of their own island.
On a number of occasions, I have drawn the attention of the House to the inequalities of pay between the Royal Malta Artillery—which will be the Maltese Army—and the British Army. I hope that the Prime Minister of Malta will do something about that when Malta becomes independent, and will thus take a lesson from other Commonwealth nations.
I support the views of many of my hon. Friends who hope that it will be possible by some means to end the litigation with Messrs. Bailey before Malta becomes independent, or very soon afterwards, so that this thorny problem is not passed on with independence. If the Maltese Government so desire it, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will back their application for membership of N.A.T.O. After all, Malta is the headquarters of the N.A.T.O. Mediterranean Command.
It is very fitting that, on the day when Her Majesty the Queen has reviewed the Royal Marines in Buckingham Palace on their 300th anniversary, we should be discussing the Malta Independence Bill. The Royal Navy and the Royal Marines have been intimately connected with Malta for nearly 200 years. I believe that the whole House will welcome a new European member of the Commonwealth.
I should like, finally, to say that Malta is the only country where one can go into a post office, or police station, and find on one wall a crucifix, or a statue of the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary, and on the other wall a picture of Her Majesty the Queen. Malta has followed the old advice that made Britain great—"Fear God and honour the Queen." I hope that an independent Malta will maintain these two virtues for many years to come.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Stan Awbery: I have read the Constitution that we are discussing. It affects the lives of 340,000 men and women in Malta. During my reading of it, I asked myself a number of questions such as, will this document bring greater happiness and harmony to the island of Malta? Will it bring the nationhood of Malta nearer than it is at present? Does it express the desires and aspirations of the people? Is it a real independence, or a sham independence, that we are offering them? Will it give the voters of Malta the rights and protection that I enjoy in this country? They have a right to expect the same privileges, the same rights, and the same responsibilities that I expect in this country. Is it a Constitution which I would make for myself? If it is, I can give it my wholehearted support.
The Commonwealth Relations Secretary traced the history of the matter leading up to the present position. He did it very well, but he left out some things, and I want to fill in the gaps. The referendum was held nine weeks ago. Was the question asked in that referendum clear, or was it obscure and ambiguous? Did they understand what they were voting for? The question that they had to answer was: do you agree with the constitution set out by the Prime Minister, Mr. Borg Olivier? I have tried to put myself in the position of the people of Malta. What influences were brought to bear on them during the referendum? Was physical, or moral, or spiritual pressure brought to bear on these men and women? If so, to what extent was this pressure brought to bear to make them vote one way or the other?
I have listened carefully to the debate and to the religious controversy that has been brought into it. I am not a particularly religious man. I want there to be tolerance in religion. If a man's belief is different from mine, I want him to be allowed to follow his belief. During the referendum, did the clerical authorities follow a policy of spiritual tolerance? Did they follow Pope Paul and Pope John in the spirit of a fast-moving and progressive age? If they had done, I do not believe that there would have been any dispute this evening about this constitution. Did the clerical authorities

act in the spirit which prevailed in this country before the Toleration Act of 1688?
Some time ago I had occasion to trace the development of Nonconformity, and how it broke away from the Conformist Church and formed its own church in Wales. The Toleration Act was then in operation. It appears that the Maltese people are in the position that we were in 300 years ago. Was there tolerance during the referendum? Were they free from coercion? What threats and intimidations were used against them?
Men must be allowed to act freely when considering both religious and political problems. We value very highly the freedom that we enjoy. I am not going to allow anyone to take away from me the freedom that was won for me by my forefathers. The people of Malta want the same religious and political freedom of action that I enjoy. According to this document, we are offering them freedom. Is this a real freedom that will last? Is this freedom fitting for a democratic people?
As I said, the referendum was held nine weeks ago. The Commonwealth Relations Secretary decided to send six observers to the island to see whether any undue pressure was being brought to bear on the people there. The United Nations asked the right hon. Gentleman for permission to send a number of international observers to the island, but he turned down that request and decided to send out his own observers to report to him. He sent them out to obtain information, but surely that information was not only for himself? The intention was that the observers should report not only to the right hon. Gentleman, but to the House. We have not, however, had their report. I was anxious to know exactly what took place. If the observers have not had an opportunity of reporting on what they saw, I know as much as the right hon. Gentleman does.
The day before yesterday, after nine weeks' delay, we were presented with a Bill. Why this rush? Why this helter-skelter to place the Bill on the Statute Book? The delay which has taken place has created mistrust and deep suspicion among the Maltese people. There is an uneasy feeling that either the Government of Malta or the Commonwealth Relations Secretary has something to


hide. Why have these observers not given us their report?
It appears that, either willingly or unwillingly, the observers have been kept silent. But if they have been compelled to remain silent and inarticulate, somebody else has spoken out to explain what was happening in Malta at that time. The Press has spoken out. It is a good thing that we have the Press. I sometimes criticise it because I think that it is biased, but in this case it has done a good job by speaking out.
I shall not give my opinion of what happened in Malta because I was not there. Under the heading "Malta Crossroads" the Sunday Telegraph of 26th April said:
No election, no referendums can express the will of the people in this world so long as the church can threaten voters with punishment in the world to come.
That statement was made, not by a member of the Labour Party, but by an unbiased newspaper when it was making its inquiries.
On 2nd May the Daily Telegraph said:
Although Archbishop Gonzi has issued a fiat that priests and nuns throughout the island are not to influence the electorate, this had been massively disregarded.
Did the observers see all this in Malta during the referendum? If so, did they report it to the Commonwealth Relations Secretary? If they did, why is it that the right hon. Gentleman has not reported to us, so that we could be as familiar with the situation as he is? Has the right hon. Gentleman stopped the observers from speaking?
On 3rd May, the Sunday Times said:
The whole referendum campaign has been heavily overshadowed by religion and conducted with nastiness and every known trickery. Despite a decree by the 77 year-old Archbishop that the referendum was a political issue and that the Church would not intervene, many priests and nuns have defied him openly advocating support for the Government draft Constitution.
That is another independent report.
On 1st May, the Catholic Herald said:
Without holding a brief for Mr. Mintoff"—
and I am glad that Mr. Mintoff's character and ability has been appreciated by some hon. Members today—
Catholic M.P.s in London find it difficult to see anything inherently objectionable in the

amendments of the Maltese Labour Party. They are distressed because many non-Catholic M.P.s without being in any way unsympathetic to the Church, feel, rightly or wrongly, that she is claiming more than her proper share in the field of spiritual sovereignty.
All those reports are from the Press. If hon. Members opposite will not accept the views of the Labour Party, they should accept the views of their own Press. Under such conditions, with such pressure brought to bear, we would not have been greatly surprised if Dr. Borg Olivier had had a tremendous majority after the referendum. But what happened? After all the pressure, 38 per cent. voted for the referendum and 32 per cent. against it—9,000 voters spoiling their papers and 30,000 people not bothering to vote. Does this Constitution represent the voice of Malta, in view of the threats that have been uttered, overt and covert? In my view it confirms my idea that although every method, moral and otherwise, was used to win affirmation for the Constitution, and despite the personal prejudice against the leader of the Malta Labour Party, only 38 people out of every 100 voted for the Constitution and as many as 32 out of every 100 against it.

Mr. Wall: Does the hon. Member realise that the difficulty about the referendum is that many people feared independence? Many people voted a certain way because they did not want independence, and not because they disapproved of the Nationalist Government's Constitution. That is what confuses the issue.

Mr. Awbery: And there were many people who wanted independence and who were afraid to vote for it because of the threats that were held over their heads.
Our Government know the wishes of the Maltese people, but they are not prepared to act. Great Britain seems to want to give Malta independence with one hand and take it back with the other. Why is this? Are we afraid of a free Malta? Are we afraid of Mr. Mintoff? We were afraid of Makarios, and we exiled him—but we brought him back in the end to negotiate with us. I can see the time coming when we will do the same with Mr. Mintoff. It will not be in my time here, because this is my swan song in the House. I am glad to be


making this contribution on behalf of the courageous and noble people of the Island of Malta.
We should not run away with the impression that the freedom of Malta is a trifling matter. It is a serious matter. Freedom is vital to thinking men and women. They value it more than life. If they did not, we would not be here today. We would not be enjoying the freedom that we now have. Millions of people have laid down their lives in order to win this freedom, and more will yet do so in order to maintain what they have, and to gain more.
I want to make it crystal clear that the people of Malta do not want national assistance from us. What they want is to be put upon a financial and economic footing which will enable them to compete in the world. Will the new constitution do that? I do not think that it will. The economic position of Malta has been gradually deteriorating. In Malta, 7,000 men are unemployed, and 7,000 men are emigrating every year. Unemployment is increasing. I am afraid that the constitution will leave the people of Malta worse off than they are now. The Sunday Times said:
Malta Vote on Constitution Indecisive
on 7th June. The Guardian said:
Uncertainty of Malta Referendum".
The Daily Telegraph said:
Both Sides Claim Malta Poll Win".
The next day the same newspaper said:
Inconclusive Understatement as far as Malta is concerned".
The Universal newspaper said:
Malta Votes But There is Doubt and Confusion".
The Minister has given an undertaking that he will not act upon an inconclusive decision. He refused to act on the decision of the previous referendum when the figures were much more conclusive. Now he wants to act when it suits his purpose. It was a confused referendum and a confused decision.
Before he comes to a final decision about the constitution of Malta I ask the Commonwealth Relations Secretary—there are legal difficulties in the way perhaps—to let the people of Malta speak in an election. I am convinced that the forces of progress will move on in Malta as they have in the past, and I ask the Minister not to do anything to prevent that from happening.

7.10 p.m.

Captain John Litchfield: I hope that I shall not be thought guilty of any discourtesy to the House or to my right hon. Friend for not having been present in the Chamber earlier. I have been engaged in the service of the House in the Estimates Committee, elsewhere.
I had not intended to intervene in the debate and I do so now only briefly and, I hope, in an uncontroversial manner, but the association of Malta with the Royal Navy has been so great and so close over such a long period that I thought it not unfitting that a naval officer who is a Member of this House should express the hope that this constitution will bring happiness, success and benefit to the people of Malta.
Not many hon. Members are able to recall the sight of the Grand Harbour at Malta a generation ago filled with great ships which occupied every part of the harbour and every creek. It was in those days the presence of the Royal Navy and the naval dockyard which brought great benefit and economic security to the Maltese. We all agree that we owe a tremendous debt to the Maltese for their courage and loyalty during the war, and I think that the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) in the Chamber during the early part of the debate indicated his own recollection of that debt.
I do not wish to enter into any controversy of party politics over this Bill, and still less into the confusion of party politics in Malta. I am glad that in the Bill generous financial provisions have been made: I think that right, and they could not be too generous.
I want to express the conviction that Malta, during the next few years, will become a good deal important from the defence point of view than has been the case recently. The uncertain political future in Cyprus, and also, possibly, in parts of North Africa, will inevitably, I think, draw greater attention to the importance of Malta once again as a naval and an air base. If that happens, some of the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) may be lessened. If, within the next few years, larger


forces are once more based on Malta, this would bring benefit to the island.
I congratulate sincerely my right hon. Friend on the success of these talks. We all appreciate that they have been exceedingly difficult.
We are almost at the end of the life of this Parliament, and I regret that we should have to debate and perhaps divide on a Bill of such great significance as this one at such short notice. This is a good Bill, but that is not the point. What arises here is something of historic importance in the long history of Malta. I appreciate the dilemma in which my right hon. Friend finds himself, but, as a matter of principle—it is not the first time such a thing has happened in this Parliament—I think it wrong that this House should be faced with having to make a decision of this significance without having proper time for consideration and debate.
Had the Bill not been the good Measure which I consider it to be, Government supporters would have been placed in a difficult position. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend, when he brings his next Bill forward in the next Parliament, will give a little more time for hon. Members to talk about it.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Like the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield) I did wartime naval service, but my experiences have left me with the view that, as a base, the usefulness of Malta is limited. I formed that opinion 20 years ago and so I hope that I may be forgiven if I say that I cannot regard the defence provisions in this Bill with approval, nor can I support the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) as enthusiastically as I should wish. Of course, what the hon. Member said must be right, regarding the economic aspects of Malta's development, which must be most important in the long run. But in the short term I cannot believe that they deserve our full attention. How can Malta develop economically unless her people and her economy can experience a release of energy which is unlikely to happen if some people in

the island bring about a close society? We have ample historic authority for this pessimistic view if, for example, we consider the situation of Spain and Portugal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) said that this may be the last occasion on which he will address the House and that he was glad to be able to speak on behalf of those great, noble and courageous people of Malta, as he described them. I am happy to have the opportunity to speak after my hon. Friend. I know of his reputation as a great fighter for freedom. Hon. Members will agree, I think, that the House has never heard him to greater effect than today and it was an appropriate occasion for his "swan song".
I share the concern which he expressed about the provisions of this Bill regarding human rights, which are crucial. I agree entirely with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), and I congratulate him on a powerful speech. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members were a little nervous in their approach to this subject, in case what they said might offend their Catholic colleagues. I do not think that they should feel nervous on that account. The susceptibilities of their Catholic colleagues are of no account alongside the real issues that we are discussing. They are of no consequence alongside the future rights of those 300,000 or 400,000 people of Malta referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central.
I think I may say fairly to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking that his Catholic colleagues share his concern. Some of us have tried to convey this concern to other authorities, to the Archbishop of Malta. It has been very difficult to convey sentiments that hon. Members, Catholic and non-Catholic, regard as self-evident and to enunciate principles which other people regard as indispensable to the development of a healthy society in Malta. Letters have been received from those who surround the Achbishop describing such sentiments as "frankly insolent". I wrote a letter to the Archbishop to which his public relations secretary replied:
I cannot bring myself to accept that you think in the way you are expressing yourself in this letter.


The belief that we cannot actually believe what we say when we speak of human freedom needing these elementary safeguards has shocked me. There seems to be a view among those around the Archbishop that anyone who was not prepared to go along with them until a few weeks ago, when they were trying to gain a supra-national position for the Church of Malta, was merely trying to create legal conditions for an apostacy—for rebellion against the Church, in other words. I think it important that we should try to understand how those in authority round the Archbishop look at these things. In this way we may begin to understand how he is thinking. Then we shall realise the seriousness of this position, if we have not already done so.
That is why I cannot follow the hon. Member for Haltemprice in thinking that the economic aspects of the Bill are the most important. The human rights aspects are the most important. This House of Commons, through the Secretary of State, cannot discharge its responsibilities to Malta unless it provides the rundimentary conditions for an open and modern society. I do not think any of us underestimate the obstacles in the path of that development, but I think we all agree that Malta and the people of Malta should be placed on that path. They should be given a chance to work towards a modern society. Yet, when I look at the Constitution and look at Section 2(2), as my hon. Friend the Member for Barking did, I note:
The State guarantees to the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church the right freely to exercise her proper spiritual and ecclesiastical functions and duties to manage her own affairs.
I go on to note the very vague character of Section 46. I cannot believe that human rights will be defensible in Malta unless the State also recognises that
All citizens are invested with equal social dignity and are equal before the law, the Administration and justice without distinction of sex, race, language, religion, political opinions and personal or social conditions.
Neither can I believe that such safeguards will be adequate unless the State recognises that
All religious denominations are equally free before the law

nor that such safeguards are enough unless the State recognises that
Religious denominations other than Catholic are entitled to organise themselves according to their own creed provided that they are not in conflict with Maltese juridical organisation.
Heaven knows, I do not regard such safeguards as the sum total but merely as the basic safeguard that this House ought to insist upon. I know the arguments, and some of them come back to me from Malta. They are that, of course, we are dealing with a society quite different from our own and quite different from that of America, not with a pluralistic society. We are reminded of that when we look at Section 2(1):
The Religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion.
Do we seriously believe that the religion of all, or the majority, of people in Malta will always be Catholic and that people there will continue to feel about religion as they do now in the numbers in which they do now given the pace of social and material change?
We are entitled to hold the proposition that, apart from not seeking such safeguards as we would seek in a pluralistic society, we should insist on them because this is not a pluralistic society. This is a case for such minimum safeguards simply because we are dealing with a monolithic society, a society which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barking said, may continue to be authoritarian and become increasingly an authoritarian society.

Mr. van Straubenzee: There is perhaps a certain piquancy in my suggesting to the hon. Member that there may be more to this than meets the eye, but would he feel on reflection, bearing in mind that we are creating a new Constitution, that Section 2 is fundamentally different from the oath which in this country we require of the Sovereign in relation to the Established Church of England?

Mr. Duffy: Yes I would, but I am concerned about its implications. If the hon. Member will bear with me I think he may see where my concern lies, although I can give him an illustration now. I am concerned, for example, for minority rights. We provide for minority rights in this country. The children of Catholic parents attending State schools in this country are able to contract out of the teaching of the State religion in those


schools. So far as I know, they have always been able to do so. I do not know of any provision in this Constitution for such contracting out. On the contrary, under Section 10 of the Constitution I find:
Religious teaching of the Roman Catholic faith will be provided in all State schools
There is no provision for contracting out, yet Catholics enjoy such rights in Britain. I should have thought the hon. Member would insist on reciprocal rights in Malta. Otherwise—do not let us mince our words—we are putting the people of Malta back into conditions reminiscent of the eighteenth century. That is something from which non-Catholic hon. Members shrink. The thought repels them. It is as alien to Catholic hon. Members as it is to non-Catholics.

Sir P. Agnew: May I help to put this matter into perspective for the hon. Member? Under the scheme known as integration, which received support on both sides of the House and which might have been carried into force, the Catholic Church in Malta would be far more strongly entrenched than it is under this scheme. That was in spite of the fact that Maltese Members were to sit in this House of Commons.

Mr. Duffy: To the best of my belief the hon. Member is quite right, although the present situation, heaven knows, is still enough to appal hon. Members because we are dealing with Archbishop Gonzi, a man who has not been dragged into politics as the hon. Member for Haltemprice suggested. The Church was not dragged in. His suggestion that but for political parties the Church would not be in politics was a gross distortion. The truth is that the Church will not get out of politics and will not give democracy a chance in Malta. Archbishop Gonzi is a man with a deplorable record, a man who is the Goldwater of Catholicism, a man who has exercised spiritual sanctions such as my hon. Friend the Member for Barking described which shocked me and must have shocked every hon. Member. As we know, ecclesiastical sanctions have been imposed for which he has no Christian authority and can find no authority within his own Church. I am

sure that many of his colleagues, not only in this country but throughout the world, have been shocked.
That is why, far from the hon. Member for Haltemprice jeering at my hon. Friends when they support safeguards in such matters as protection for citizens who wish to hold peaceful meetings, protection in respect of the holding of demonstrations, and protection in respect of the ringing of bells, he should realise that these are important issues. He regarded them as unimportant and even matters for amusement, but hon. Members who have been in touch with conditions in Malta know that these are the kind of practices which have been employed in Malta against a political party and presumably on behalf of the Church authority. These things have happened, and I suggest that there is a case for such safeguards, in some form or another, being introduced into the constitution.
It is not merely Archbishop Gonzi and those immediately around him with whom we are dealing. We are also dealing with the Diocesan Joint Council of the Catholic Lay Organisations. May I quote from a resolution from the Council? It resolves
to bring to the notice of Her Majesty's Government that they are not in a position to propose, and much less to impose, limitations on the freeedom of the Catholic Church in the exercise of her mission.
I emphasise the phrase "her mission", because in my experience there are few people from whom most Catholics shrink more than their fellow Catholics who believe that they have a mission in life and who attempt to practise Catholicism with, if hon. Members will forgive the phrase, an evangelical fervour. The quotation continues:
… especially as regards the guidance of the individual and collective conscience, religious, education and in the moral standards of a Catholic country.
Plato would have admired the intention of that paragraph, but he would have been appalled at the temper and spirit behind it.
These are people whom we must bear in mind, as well as the Archbishop and those immediately around him. That is why I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barking when he said that the Constitution ought to include safeguards for broadcasting, especially


on religious questions, and provision that no person shall for political or religious reasons be deprived of burial in cemeteries built or maintained wholly or partially by the Government of Malta.
I come back to where I began. I say sincerely to the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot discharge his responsibility to Malta unless he provides in the constitution rudimentary conditions for an open modern society. I am entirely at one with my hon. Friend the Member for Barking in this: the right hon. Gentleman cannot leave the people of Malta exposed, even to a small degree, to the powers of a man whose conception of Church-State relations is quite mediaeval. It is absurd to tell the House, as the right hon. Gentleman told it this afternoon, that a pledge was given under George III to Malta, and that that pledge involves Her Majesty's Government now to some degree in ensuring the special place of the Catholic Church in Malta. To whom was that pledge given by George III? Can the right hon. Gentleman in all seriousness say that sovereignty in Malta has not changed its seat even a little since George III?
I will not quote fully, because my hon. Friend the Member for Barking quoted it, the letter in The Guardian today from Count Michael de la Bedoyere, who is a prominent Catholic layman and until two years ago was editor of the Catholic Herald. He ends his letter by saying that the new Constitution can only lead, in his view, to serious trouble, religiously and politically. I urge that view upon the right hon. Gentleman and I ask him, in the spirit in which it has been requested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central, that before he foists this Constitution upon the people of Malta, at least he will allow a General Election to be held.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: In recent years I think that I have taken part in more Independence Bill debates in the House than I can count. I may even have taken part in more than has the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. They have usually been agreeable occasions and relatively non-

controversial. But this afternoon has been a particularly miserable occasion, and quite exceptional among the Independence Bills which the Government have brought before the House. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) said in opening the debate for the Opposition, it seems particularly unfortunate that this should occur in the case of Malta, which is one of our oldest Colonies and is a Colony for which the British people have a close attachment because of its record of bravery and courage during the Second World War.
It is almost exactly 150 years ago to the month that Malta became a Crown Colony and was formally ceded to this country under the Treaty of Paris at the end of the Napoleonic War. It seems extremely unfortunate that Malta's final journey to independence should take place in such a highly unsatisfactory rush and amid the mass of recriminations with which it is undoubtedly surrounded. The Secretary of State will have noted that even the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) found himself in strong agreement with the criticism made from this side of the House of the way in which the Government have handled this matter.
I do not blame the Secretary of State for the difficulty which he has had in persuading such very strong and diverse characters as Mr. Dom Mintoff, Mr. Borg Olivier and Archbishop Gonzi to come together in Christian or brotherly harmony and love. I do not envy the lot of any statesman who has to tackle that task. But we do blame the Secretary of State and the Government for the way in which they have rushed the final stages of this on us.
This is by no means the first time that it has happened, although I do not think that it has happened before in such difficult and unfortunate circumstances. I am afraid that we are becoming very much accustomed to this kind of thing from the right hon. Gentleman. When he stood up in the House on Tuesday, only two days ago, and announced to the House,
I have this morning completed the long negotiations with the Government of Malta on the question of independence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 277.]
it awakened echoes in my memory, because it is only a few weeks ago, on


15th May, that he came to the House one morning and said about Basutoland,
The conference completed its work in the early hours of this morning and we have just this morning signed our report."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1964; Vol. 694, c. 777.]
He was once again putting himself in the position of suddenly rushing constitutional developments which I think ought to be taken much more slowly and much more carefully than I am afraid they have been under his stewardship.

Mr. Sandys: I do not understand this accusation. I can understand that the Malta Independence Bill is a fearful rush, and we all regret it. But I do not think that it is a ground for criticism that I came straight to the House after a conference to inform the House of the result of that conference. I did not bring in a Bill or ask for action to be taken. I merely informed the House at the first possible moment.

Mr. Thomson: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I was not complaining abouth is lack of courtesy. On the occasion to which I refer, I thanked him for coming straight to the House and telling us about it before the House went into Recess. I am complaining about the way in which he rushes the agreements which have been made. There are long delays when he is not available to go into conference, and then suddenly everything happens in a rush, and the results are frequently very unsatisfactory, as they are in this case.
Today there is further evidence that it was a disastrous decision of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), to combine the posts of the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office at the time that he did. It is, of course, true that the Colonial Territories are much fewer, but I think that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that this amalgamation happened before it should have done. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, after his experience of the many different problems he has had on his hands, as Joint Secretary of State, might very well have come to agree with me on this. I sometimes feel that his experience might lead him to enunciate what might be called Sandys' Law: "The time taken over colonial problems varies in inverse

proportion to the number, size and population of the Colonial Territories that are left under under Her Majesty's Government."
The right hon. Gentleman has many qualities, and I do not deny them, but he has no capacity to delegate decisions to any of the Ministers who serve under him. Again and again over recent months we have had a situation occur in which decisions have been delayed by the right hon. Gentleman until they have had to be taken in a hurry and all sorts of complications have followed from that. I think of the case of Zanzibar, in which the right hon. Gentleman took the perfectly correct decision to recognise the new Government of Zanzibar but took it so belatedly that the good will which could have been obtained from that was lost.
This is the complaint that we are making against the way in which the Government are handling this Bill. I am arguing that it has not been an isolated example, and I suspect that when the new Labour Administration comes into office after the General Election we shall find perhaps 12 months from now, something exploding in the House of Commons and when we look at the reason for this happening it will be discovered that something had piled up in the Colonial Office six months or nine months ago and was not dealt with then with the expedition that it should have had.
In the case of this Bill, the Secretary of State has put the House and the Opposition in what is not only an intolerable but an insoluble dilemma, and I do not think that there is now any satisfactory solution to the timetable that has been imposed on us. We on this side of the House did not feel that it would have been right to delay independence until after the British General Election. It is for this reason that we are not opposing the Second Reading of the Bill. With a new Government after the General Election in this country it would inevitably mean that the final decision on independence for Malta would need to be delayed until some time after the new Government had taken office. I think that this is the answer to the very curious point put by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) to us.


He seemed to be complaining that although we grumbled at the timetable that the Government had imposed on the House we were not opposing the Bill, and he seemed to feel that this was some kind of humbug on our part. It is a little hard or. us when we tried to show a sense of responsibility to the House in this matter that we should then be attacked for not obstructing the Government in wanting this Measure through. We have taken the attitude that we have, because we feel that it would be quite wrong for this House to stand in the way of independence for Malta in circumstances in which the one thing that is certain about Malta is that a substantial majority of the people want independence.
The referendum, which was so inconclusive in other ways, was fairly decisive on that point. As I read it, there were 120,600 votes for independence in one form or another and about 41,000 votes against There was, however, no certainty whatever about the decision of the Maltese people on the form of the constitution under which they wish to have independence. In the referendum there were 65,714 for the Constitution under which the Maltese Government are being granted independence and there were, according to my calculations, 95,935 against that Constitution. The present Government of Malta was originally elected on a 42 per cent. poll at the last general election, and it is for that reason that we feel that it is highly reasonable and indeed absolutely essential that before Malta advances to full independence there should be a new General Election.
This will be argued in more detail, we trust, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on a manuscript Amendment in Committee. But I say to the Secretary of State that he puts himself in a very difficult and invidious position on this matter if he is prepared to say, as he has done, that in the case of British Guiana there has got to be a general election before it can move towards independence, but in the case of Malta, against a background I have described, he has said that a general election is not necessary.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who is not with us at the moment, said in criticising the Opposition party in Malta that they wanted to take a certain course of action which he

was convinced the majority of the Maltese people would repudiate. I do not know what the majority of the Maltese people would do in a general election, but I say let them have the chance and let them take their choice whether they want independence under this Constitution or with amendments of it. Then the new Government which would lead Malta into independence, whatever its character, would have a fresh mandate and the full authority of the Maltese people behind it.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Is it not quite unrealistic to compare British Guiana with Malta? Quite different circumstances pertain in one to the other. It is a very different political situation in British Guiana from what it is in Malta. Surely it is not strictly fair to compare the two?

Mr. Thomson: It is always difficult to compare any one country with another. There are undoubtedly differences. This will come up in more detail on the next stage of the Bill, and I do not want to take time on it now, but I should be interested to hear the Secretary of State explain why, in this case, what is all right for British Guiana is all wrong for Malta. I leave it to him to make his case when the time comes.
From this side we welcome the changes which the Secretary of State has been able to obtain and make in the new Constitution in relation to the human rights provisions so far as they go, but they do not go very far or as far as we would like. We are, however, on this side of the House particularly glad to see that after about two years the Government have taken the advice of the Opposition in the way to approach this. If The Times is to be believed this morning these changes were brought about by Her Majesty's Government approaching the Vatican on this matter and getting its co-operation. This was exactly the course of action that the Opposition pressed on the Government in an interview which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and I had with the Minister then responsible after the last general election in Malta, and I am sure that it has been the right course to take.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) and my hon.


Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) have made it quite clear that it is perfectly possible to be critical of the behaviour of the ecclesiastical authorities in Malta without being anti-Catholic in doing so. It is perfectly possible and I would have thought the reasonable and wise thing in present circumstances to be on the side of the Vatican in these matters and critical of the kind of position that has been taken up by the Archbishop inside Malta.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: It ought not to go out from this House that there is at this moment any difference at all between the Archbishop and the Holy See. The custom in the Catholic Church is always to argue at very great length but when a decision comes to be taken then everyone loyally abides by it.

Mr. Thomson: I am very glad to have that assurance from the hon. Member, with the authority and knowledge that he brings to it, which I do not have. If the Catholic Church in Malta is now going to follow the very welcome lines of social advance that have been taken by the last Pope, Pope John, and the present Pope, I am sure that the future of Malta will be a much happier and more harmonious one. I only hope that the hon. Gentleman is right.
The point I wanted to make, taking perhaps a rather less optimistic view of the situation, was that the present Constitution ought to have had further safeguards in it than it has. A number of hon. Members have drawn attention to the rather remarkable Clause 41 of the Constitution on protection of freedom of conscience. Paragraph (1) says:
All persons in Malta shall have full freedom of conscience and enjoy the free exercise of their respective mode of religious worship.
Paragraph (2) goes on to qualify this quite substantially. It qualifies it in a way, to use the concluding words, which
is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.
I am no lawyer, but I boggle at the task of the judge who has to define what can be shown
to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.
Apart from that, I wonder why there should be any clarification of the sort

which is contained in paragraph (2) of the protection of freedom of conscience. I can understand the qualifications being inserted in other Clauses dealing with matters like the freedom of assembly or the freedom of the Press. There there are obviously great difficulties. Clearly, in any community there must be legal provisions about the supremacy of public order, and so on. But I cannot for the life of me understand why questions of public order, public safety, public morality or decency and public health come into the question of freedom of conscience. I hope that the Secretary of State can give us some explanation of that. I should have liked to have seen it amongst the paragraphs that the Secretary of State deleted from the Constitution.
Having said that, I must confess that for my part I recognise that there are substantial limits to the extent to which tolerance can be promoted by means of legal process, especially by legal process initiated from outside the community in which one hopes that the mutual tolerance will grow up. I believe that in the end the people of Malta must work out, no doubt slowly and with difficulty, as others have had to do, the conflicts inherent between Church and State in a modern community. In future, our duty will lie in giving the maximum amount of economic help to Malta, in making her independence a reality, and in trying to create a viable community there.
It seems to me that Her Majesty's Government have been reasonably generous in the Finance Agreement. I have worked out that the £5 million a year over ten years is in proportion to population roughly five times the normal amount of Commonwealth aid that we are giving at the moment to the Commonwealth as a whole. I am inclined to agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that in connection with a financial settlement of this sort it ought to have been possible for the Government to have obtained some more safeguards in the Constitution than they have in fact been able to obtain.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that in the case of Malta, perhaps to a peculiar extent, we have a special historic responsibility. The modern Maltese


community, its economy, the size of its population, its whole shape, is the result of our using Malta for our own military purposes for over a century and a half. At times when the going got very difficult indeed—when during two years of the last war there were 4,000 air raids—the Maltese people stood up to this and stood with us. It would be agreed on both sides of the House that there is a very strong moral obligation for us to give the Maltese people the means to make a new life for themselves in the new circumstances of the world as they find it.
This is the last time, because of the way the Government have acted on this, that we shall discuss Malta as a Colony. Because of the impending General Election, this is the last time that Malta will be discussed in this Parliament. But we can be pretty sure, as the various forebodings which have been expressed from both sides of the House have shown, that it is by no means the last time that the House of Commons will have to debate, and concern itself with, the problems of Malta. We can only hope that, despite the difficulties, despite the defects which we find in the Constitution, Malta will do well in its new adventure in independence. There I conclude.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I speak again by leave of the House. I rather agree with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) that this has been a somewhat unhappy debate. In so far as it is due to the haste with which we have had to bring the Bill before the House, I once more express my regret to hon. Members. But I do not think that the atmosphere which has been created by some of the speeches we have heard is wholly attributable to the Parliamentary timetable. Some of the things which have been said, and the tone in which some of the speeches have been delivered, are in my view, regrettable, and will send a somewhat unhappy message to many people in Malta.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn), the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and others complained—I do not object to that in any way—of the speed with which we have introduced—

Sir K. Pickthorn: On a point of order. It is quite impossible to hear a word that my right hon. Friend is saying.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Further to that point of order. Is it possible, in view of all that has happened, that the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) may be promoted to the Front Bench?

Mr. Sandys: I will speak louder. This is the second time that my hon. Friend has not heard. It may be that the loudspeaker arrangements in his part of the House are inadequate.
I was saying that my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for South Shields had complained of the speed with which the Bill had been introduced. I was asked to explain—I gladly do so—why I thought that it was unavoidable. I believe that the Constitution and the Agreements which are now before the House are the best we can secure in all the circumstances, and that after 18 months of discussion there would be no prospect at all of obtaining a wider measure of agreement by further delay and further conferences.
We fixed a target date for independence not later than 31st May. It was most unfortunate that this target date could not be achieved, because we were not able to conclude the negotiations and the discussions in time. If we fail to pass the Bill now, it would be difficult to get independence much before the beginning of next year. The hon. Member for Dundee, East agreed with us that it would be unfortunate to have a further long delay in giving independence to Malta. We all realise that, once a country has been promised independence, once the arrangements have been made and the agreements reached, it is not wise to appear to hold back. All kinds of misinterpretations are liable to be placed upon that.
Apart from the political factor, I should emphasise that the Government of Malta are very anxious to go ahead with the planning of their economic development. This is, to some extent, dependent upon the arrangements we have made in the Finance Agreement. They want to be sure that these things are firm, settled and signed—which will not be until after independence—before they can enter into firm and definite com-


mitments in regard to their economic plans.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East and other hon. Members asked that there should be fresh elections before independence, but since I understand that an Amendment is to be moved in Committee, perhaps the House will forgive me if I do not go over this ground twice.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East also raised the question of Section 41(2), dealing with freedom of conscience. He was surprised to find that, having stated the broad principle, there was then an additional subsection which appeared to limit that freedom. I can assure him that this is common form in all constitutions which this House has approved time and again.
Incidentally, I am a little disturbed that the House seems to be looking at these matters in relation to Malta with quite a different eye from the way hon. Members have looked at it in relation to Kenya, Malawi, Tanganyika and other countries. I am not saying anything against these other countries, but I feel that altogether different standards are being applied to Malta. This provision is common form. The purpose of these exemptions is to safeguard against what one might call barbarous, immoral and unhygienic practices which could be carried on under the cover of a religious cult. That is the purpose of the subsection and, as I say, it appears in most other modern constitutions.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) said that the Defence Agreement did not provide for consultation with the Maltese Government. That is not so. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at it he will see that Article 7 of the Agreement states:
Arrangements shall be made for consultation between the Government of Malta and the Government of the United Kingdom and their respective authorities on the operation of this Agreement and each Government shall have the right to raise with the other at any time any question as to the application of this Agreement, where that is materially affected by any change of circumstances.
The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East also seemed surprised and

critical that the Finance Agreement provided an extensive right for Her Majesty's Government to concern themselves with the use to which this money will be put in the development programme of Malta. The reason for that is, that we are providing considerably more money than we do in normal circumstances, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East pointed out, and since we have this continuing obligation to try to help Malta, we naturally want to make sure that the money being provided is used to the best possible advantage. I can assure the House that we have no wish, having given independence to Malta, to try to cramp its style or to make it difficult for the island to plan its economy in the way that it wishes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) asked about the rights of Bailey (Malta) Ltd., to receive reasonable payments out of the funds of the company towards its expenses in litigation with Her Majesty's Government. I can assure them that this provision is contained in an Act of the Malta Legislature which will not in any way be affected by the passing of this Bill.
The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) complained that discrimination was to be allowed in the admission of persons to the public service.

Mr. Driberg: I asked if that was the meaning of the subsection.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member expressed anxiety lest there might be discrimination. I know that these constitutions are a little difficult to understand, but, again, this is a common form provision and I consider that it is perfectly legitimate to say, for example, that a judge must be a barrister of so many years' standing or that a soldier must have good eyesight and be of a certain height; or that a civil servant must be able to speak English as well as Maltese. Those are the kind of situations with which it is intended to deal.

Mr. Driberg: What the right hon. Gentleman is saying does not accord with Section 46(3), in which the definition of "discriminatory" is given as:
affording different treatment to different persons attributable wholly or mainly to their


respective descriptions by race, place of origin, political opinions, colour or creed … 
That has nothing to do with the remarks he is now making.

Mr. Sandys: I will be glad to explain it further, but I do not think that hon. Members would want me to go into great detail on this issue now.

Mrs. Castle: Why not?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member for Barking will find the whole of this in other constitutions which this House has approved time and again.
Then I was asked about Section 46(9). This provides not, as I think it was suggested, that all teachers must be Roman Catholics, but only that teachers whose job it is to teach the Roman Catholic religion must be Roman Catholics. That does not seem altogether unreasonable.
The hon. Member for Barking also asked why marriage was excluded from the non-discrimination Clause. There again, I have to tell the House that that is common practice in all modern constitutions which have been approved by this House for one country after another. The purpose is so that Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews and others may be allowed to have different rules for marriage and divorce according to their customs.

Mr. Driberg: I regret to have to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but would he clear up a point which is of considerable human interest to many people in this country? What will be the position in future of people who are in the position of the man whose case I described—who married a Maltese girl in an Anglican church here but then found that his marriage was annulled in Malta?

Mr. Sandys: We are dealing with a constitution. There are all sorts of desirable laws people might like to see passed in Malta, but they do not belong in a constitution. Constitutions do not deal with marriage and electoral laws and those sort of things. I do not know of any examples where they do.
There has been an attempt with regard to this Constitution to put into it all the things people would like to see enacted by

the Parliament of Malta. They may be very desirable but it does not mean to say that they should be included in the Constitution and entrenched in a special way. These laws are matters for the Parliament of Malta. The House should realise that we are not suddenly introducing all sorts of reactionary measures, as would appear to be suggested. We are making certain changes in a liberal direction, but are not totally remodelling the law of Malta.
The hon. Member for Barking said that the Roman Catholic hierarchy would interpret the Constitution in a biased and oppressive manner. That was the sense of his comments. The Constitution will have to be interpreted not by the Church, but by the courts, and I have no reason to suppose that they will interpret it in a biased manner. Nobody has suggested—although allegations have been bandied about—that the courts of Malta do not behave in a strictly judicial manner.
The hon. Gentleman said that the constitution could be changed by a two-thirds majority after independence. Of course, we are giving independence to the country. We must remember that. When we give a country independence we give the people the right to do the things they want to do. We can make certain things more difficult in the constitution by insisting on a two-thirds majority or by other provisions but, in the end, if they want to do something after independence that we do not like, there is nothing we can do to stop it, and we must recognise that position.
We all enjoyed the vigorous speech delivered by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery), and I am sure that we are all sorry—I was not aware of it before—to learn that we are not likely to hear him again in this House. The hon. Gentleman said that I should not act on an inconclusive referendum. I have tried to make it very clear that I am not acting on an inconclusive referendum. I said that I regarded this referendum as inconclusive, and was, therefore, not prepared to base any decision upon it.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East criticised me for insisting on this referendum, and for choosing an ambiguous question. I


made it very clear to the House some months ago that I did not initiate this referendum, and that I did not choose the question that was put. I was very insistent that it should be understood that it was a referendum initiated by the Government of Malta on their own responsibility and on the responsibility of the Legislature of Malta. I should have got into very great difficulties if I had started laying down exactly what questions should be put, and we would have been committed to all kinds of consequences if the referendum had come out in an unsatisfactory way.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the referendum cannot be accepted as a mandate. I am not regarding the referendum as a mandate at all. He and other hon. Members have said that less than 50 per cent. voted for the Constitution in the referendum. I do not wish to analyse the results of the referendum, because I do not believe it to be a basis on which we should found our decisions. Nevertheless, 50 per cent. is not altogether a bad vote. The last Labour Government was elected by less than 50 per cent. of the votes—they obtained only 38·8 per cent. of the votes cast. I do not say that that is wrong, but we do have to be a little careful what we say, and about the use we make of percentages.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlton—

Mr. Michael Foot: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery), will he tell the House why he has failed to publish the observers' report?

Mr. Sandys: As I said recently at Question Time, I think that what we want to do as far as we can, is to create a good atmosphere in which to launch Malta upon independence. I set up this team of observers, but, as I explained, their report is entirely confidential and I would have to consult them before I could publish it. But, since I made it perfectly clear that I am not basing any decisions on the results of the referendum, I think that the whole thing has become academic, and I see no point in publishing the report. It was not intended to be published. If there was great importance

attaching to it, because we were basing our decision on the referendum, the House would be entitled, if not to see the report, at any rate to have an account from me of what it contained—

Mr. M. Foot: Will not the Minister take into account that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central quoted from several newspapers, and certainly not Labour newspapers, what was the view of the reporters there of what happened at the time? One of the questions my hon. Friend put to the right hon. Gentleman was whether the report appearing in the newspapers of the exercise of quite improper activities by the Roman Catholic Church there was corroborated by the kind of evidence that came into the observers' report. Why should not the House of Commons be able to judge the observers' report as well as the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Sandys: All I can say is that the observers' report is about as inconclusive as the referendum, but I really do not want to start an argument about that if I can avoid it—

Mrs. Castle: The Secretary of State keeps reiterating that he is not basing anything on the outcome of the referendum, so that is outside the argument. If that is so, on what is the right hon. Gentleman basing his Constitution? If it is not on the referendum and if it is not on an election, it must be purely on his own personal judgment. If that is so, what is the relevance of his saying that delay would not lead to any chance of closer agreement between the parties? He is not basing his Constitution on agreement between the parties but on what he thinks is democratically right for Malta. That being so, is he not responsible for all the undemocratic faults in the Constitution?

Mr. Sandys: This is my bible—the Report of the Malta Independence Conference that was held last summer, in which the Malta Government set out the Constitution which they wanted. On the opposite page, we have the amendments proposed by the Malta Labour Party to every Section and subsection right the way through and, at the back, we have the amendments proposed by the other three parties on every point where they differed with the proposals of the Malta Government. We have an absolute bible


here of what every one of the political parties thinks of every Section of the Constitution, and I think that that is the best starting point.
As I explained when moving the Second Reading, I took the Constitution proposed by the Malta Government and then compared it with the Constitutions which the House approved for other British territories obtaining independence. I assumed that the Constitutions which the House had approved for other territories were also acceptable for Malta and tried to bring the two as nearly as I could into conformity with each other.
But I must say that it seems that the House is applying different standards to Malta from those they have applied to other countries, and that is the difficulty we are up against this afternoon—

Mrs. Castle: In what comparable Constitutions are there provisions such as those in Section 2(1) and (2) of Chapter 1? It is because Malta is different in this respect that we have to apply different provisions—

Mr. Sandys: That is the provision relating to the Roman Catholic religion being the religion of Malta?

Mrs. Castle: Not only that—there is also Section 2(2).

Mr. Sandys: A good example is the Malaya Constitution, which says that the religion of Malaya shall be the Muslim religion—

Mrs. Castle: The Minister is deliberately misunderstanding. I referred to Section 2(2). Nobody contests that the Roman Catholic religion should be the religion of Malta. Dom Mintoff accepts that, and the Labour Party, and others, but Section 2(2) gives special rights and duties that are not normally given to Church authorities—

Mr. Sandys: We tried to take into account all local circumstances—

Mrs. Castle: Exactly.

Mr. Sandys: —and there is nothing unique in that. It is all very well for the hon. Lady to sigh—

Mrs. Castle: It is enough to make one want to weep.

Mr. Sandys: We do, in all these Constitutions, take account of special circum-

stances. As I have said before, there is no doubt that the position of the Catholic Church in Malta is a special circumstance, in the same way that the position of the Muslim faith in Malay is a special circumstance. We also had to provide special safeguards in the case of North Borneo and Sarawak for the indigenous population. We have to take account of all kinds of special circumstances that arise in these territories.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlton questioned whether it was correct to vest legislative power in Her Majesty in Parliament.

Sir K. Pickthorn: No, "Her Majesty in Parliament" is quite all right. What I did not feel so sure about, I think my right hon. Friend will find on page 23—

Mr. Sandys: My hon. Friend asked whether we applied this in other places. This is a quotation from the Kenya Constitution:
There shall be a Parliament which shall consist of Her Majesty and a National Assembly.

Sir K. Pickthorn: I should like to know who started that one.

Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East and others said that the Maltese opposition parties should have been consulted, and that there should have been a conference. I do not know how much more consultation he wants, and how many more conferences. I had a preparatory meeting with the Government of Malta nearly two years ago. I then went out to Malta and had meetings with all the political parties there. We then had a conference in London, in which all the political parties took part and reported their views, as I have just indicated to the House.
Then we had a meeting in December, in London, to which all the political parties came; and then I had another meeting in the early part of this year to which they came. We had the fullest consultation. The Prime Minister in Malta, in between these meetings in London, has had consultations with the various parties.
I think that we have exhausted the possibility of agreement by consultation, and this is what I am explaining to the House. I do not think that we would


make further progress. I know exactly what the views of these parties are. The trouble is that none of them, with the exception of the Malta Government—and that only after many weeks of discussion—is prepared to make any concessions towards one another.

Mr. John Stonehouse: Would the right hon. Gentleman concede that that is exactly the position in British Guiana? Why, therefore, is he rushing this Bill through and doing nothing about British Guiana?

Mr. Sandys: The difference is that, while these people say rather beastly things about each other, they do not kill or burn one another every night. It is unfair to Malta to compare it in any way whatsoever with the situation that is obtaining in British Guiana.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) made a very virulent attack on the Catholic Church. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not on the Church."] Certainly it was an attack on the Catholic Church in Malta, and in terms which I thought regrettable.

Mr. Duffy: If the right hon. Gentleman consults HANSARD he will find no evidence whatsoever of a virulent attack on the Catholic Church. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] What I deplored was the conduct of some members of the Catholic Church, both ecclesiastic and lay, with regard to the Constitution in Malta. I regard this not only as an infringement of human rights, but as offensive to Catholics throughout the world and especially in this country.

Mr. Sandys: It is difficult to make an attack of the kind which the hon. Member made on leaders of the Church in Malta, without that being regarded by Catholics throughout that country as an attack upon their Church and religion. The House of Commons is a free place and the hon. Member is perfectly entitled to say what he did, but I am equally entitled to say that I regret his speech. I thought that a moderate way of expressing myself.

Mr. M. Foot: But the right hon. Gentleman misrepresented what my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) said.

Mr. Duffy: The right hon. Gentleman will also find, when he consults HANSARD and other hon. Members, that what I had to say was perfectly factual. The right hon. Gentleman may deplore it, and I deplore it, but there is no point in blinking one's eyes to facts.

Mr. Sandys: I will not issue that matter further. The hon. Member said that we were delivering the people of Malta back to the Middle Ages.

Mr. Duffy: The conditions of the eighteenth century. The right hon. Gentleman must get the record straight.

Mr. Sandys: All right, the eighteenth century if the hon. Member prefers it, but the idea was that we were putting the clock back. That is the impression the hon. Member may have, but we are in fact introducing amendments into the constitution of a liberal character. They may not go as far as some hon. Members would like, but every change that we are making is in the general direction which, I am sure, is desired by the whole House. I cannot understand why there has not been all this interest in the laws and Constitution of Malta in the past. These laws have existed for a long time. The law most complained about—the Electoral Law—was introduced in 1924.

Mr. M. Foot: The Constitution had to be suspended in 1930.

Mr. Sandys: The law was introduced at a time when the Government here had the right to disallow laws, and it happened to be a Labour Government.

Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that in 1930 the Constitution of Malta had to be suspended by the Labour Government precisely because the Catholic Church in Malta was using the same methods against the Strickland Government as it now tries to use against the Mintoff party? Does the right hon. Gentleman not know the history?

Mr. Sandys: If the Church behaved in the way of which the hon. Member complains, I would remind him that Mr. Mintoff later won a General Election and became Prime Minister and did not think it worth while to change this law, which he could have done.
The right hon. Member for South Shields and my hon. Friend the Member


for Carlton recognised that there are special circumstances in Malta in the sphere of religion. Both made a statement which, I think, does credit to the House. They said that having given a pledge, as we did, to the people of Malta, when they voluntarily handed over the protection of their island to the British Crown, we should not write that off and act as though it did not exist. Circumstances, of course, have changed, and we have to take account of the movement of thought in the world, but that does not mean to say that because this pledge was given a long time ago we do not regard ourselves as committed by it. I am glad that recognition of that fact has been expressed.
A great deal has been said about the intervention of the Roman Catholic Church in elections in Malta. In this intensely devout Catholic country, the influence of the Church, not only at election time, but also in the daily lives of the people, plays a much greater part than it does in many other places. Many people, however, of all denominations, will feel that although this religious influence may at times have been misused—I do not question that—it is none the less an influence for good and it is not part of our business to try to weaken the loyalty of the people of Malta towards their Church.
Even those who do not take that view will, I think, accept that we should not try to apply to Malta more stringent standards than we have applied to other territories which are seeking independence. There is no doubt that, in some other British territories, pressures of various kinds have been exerted which were much greater than any exercised by the church in Malta, and yet we have not attempted to make independence conditional upon the elimination of that kind of influence. The House will I am sure agree that the same rules must apply to all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), in a very constructive speech, stressed the importance of the economic problem. I am greatly surprised that in this debate so little has been said about the economic problem which confronts Malta. If there is one thing which should cause us anxiety and concern, and which should

have been discussed in the debate, it is the economic future of Malta. Instead of which almost all the speeches have been devoted to quite other matters. I hope very much that, after independence, Maltese politics will be less concerned with ecclesiastical issues, and that more attention will be concentrated upon the urgent problems of industrial development and financial stability, upon which the future well-being of the country will depend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham made an appeal for cooperation in Malta. I am sure that that is the note on which we should end this Second Reading debate. Of course, there are differences between the parties on all sorts of questions, but in a small island like Malta there is not room for the divergencies of attitude between the parties and groups which exist today. If Malta, with all its economic difficulties, is to go ahead and thrive and become viable, she will have to depend upon the good will and cooperation of all her people and, above all, of her political leaders.
I hope that we can send out to Malta from this House today a message of good will and confidence and an appeal to all in Malta to make a success of independence.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. R. W. Elliott.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(FULLY RESPONSIBLE STATUS OF MALTA.)

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Bottomley: I beg to move a manuscript Amendment.

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will read it to the Committee.

Mr. Bottomley: Certainly, Sir Robert: in Clause 1, page 1, line 8, at the end to insert:
provided that no such Order in Council shall be made until after a dissolution of the present Legislative Assembly for Malta and the holding of a general election there.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am prepared to accept that as a manuscript Amendment.

Mr. Bottomley: It is not my intention to make a long speech in moving this Amendment, because owing to the limited parliamentary time available many of my hon. Friends who wanted to take part in the debate have been deprived of the opportunity. I hope that if I am brief, they will be afforded a chance of taking part in the discussion.
There are, I am sure, many who share the view that the present Government are living on borrowed time, and it is questionable whether they had the authority to introduce the Bill which is now before the House of Commons. At least, it can be said for the Government that by a democratic procedure they received the support of the majority of the people in this country. But this cannot be said in the case of the present Malta Government. When the General Election took place in 1962, the Government Party got only 42 per cent. support from the electorate and the combined Opposition amounted to 58 per cent. I think we do well to take note of the fact that the Malta Government are unrepresentative in the sense of the number of the electors who gave them support.
The United Nations Special Committee on Colonialism examined this question, and because it thought that the 1962 elections were unsatisfactory it called for new elections to take place. We have asked the Secretary of State about the report of the observers, and he has given us some indication why it cannot be published. But one could hazard a guess that the referendum was conducted under conditions which could not altogether be called favourable. There were no observers at the time of the 1962 General Election, and I think that we can conclude that that election was certainly held under conditions less favourable than those at the time of the referendum. There can be no doubt whatever that the present situation is not satisfactory, and that the only way in which we could come to a reasonable conclusion would be by pressing for new elections to be held. The Secretary of State himself at one time said that he thought that within six months of independence there should be a General Election in Malta.

I do not know whether he has changed his mind completely about that. If he has, perhaps he could give us his views. But certainly no mention has been made of it in the debate, and there is no comment about it in the documents submitted to us.
The referendum and the legislation which we have had presented to us were, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, discussed and decided by the Malta Legislature. But approval was by a very narrow vote. I may be wrong, but I think there was one vote in it. Perhaps I may be corrected if that is not so. Consequently, I would say that there is doubt in this case, and I do not think we should be doing service to the people of Malta if we allowed this independence Bill to go through without saying that, in our judgment, it would be better to have a General Election first. I hope that the Committee will agree with me and support the Amendment.

Mr. M. Foot: The Amendment is connected, I believe, with a question which we have already discussed—why the Government wish to push through this Measure so swiftly and in conditions which the Secretary of State himself has admitted to be extremely inconvenient for the House of Commons.
The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech just now, gave two reasons why it was necessary to push the Measure through in this abrupt manner. If we were to pass this Amendment, it would offer some mitigation of the situation because it would give further time for consideration to be given to the new Constitution in Malta, if not in this country. As I say, the right hon. Gentleman offered two reasons why he had forced this procedure on the House, and I should like to look at them first.
The right hon. Gentleman said that if we did not accept the Measure and press it through at this moment, it might not be feasible to arrange the introduction of the new Malta Constitution before the beginning of next year. He says that as we have waited for so long, and as negotiations have proceeded over so many years, we are not doing wrong in forcing this independence Measure through now. But his argument cuts both ways.
If we have been negotiating and discussing Malta's problems for very many years, and the possibility of independence for the island, then it is not a very powerful argument to say that suddenly we must bring the whole discussion to an end in circumstances in which the Borg Olivier Government seem, in our view, to have established their position by rigged elections. To bring down the curtain at this moment is extremely unfair to a great section of opinion in Malta. That situation would be remedied by the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman's first reason for rushing through this legislation is, therefore, not a powerful one.
His other reason, which I can well understand, is that the Maltese Government wish to proceed as fast as possible to make their economic plans for the future. I can appreciate that argument. It is a creditable one. But when we look at the situation as a whole, consider how tense the position in Malta is and the response of the Maltese Labour Party to these rush proposals, we must surely conclude that these feelings are far outweighed by the desire to try to secure a more general agreement about the Constitution.
I do not want to go over many of the questions already discussed or to say many of the things which some of us might be provoked to say in a debate such as this, because it would not be helpful to do so. But the right hon. Gentleman has shown incomprehension of the real situation. He complained several times that hon. Members on this side of the Committee were somehow treating an Independence Bill for Malta differently from Independence Bills for other territories. That was the burden of his speech, but it missed the point. The situation in Malta is very special because of the powers which are to be given to the Roman Catholic Church under the Bill and because of the way it has exercised those powers in the past.

Sir P. Agnew: Some of those powers have been taken away.

Mr. M. Foot: The hon. Member says that some powers have been taken away. We have had a lot of debate about this. The concessions made by the right hon. Gentleman do not mean very much.

Our argument is that they do not alter the general situation. That is certainly the view of the Maltese Labour Party as expressed by those who have been able to speak for it and in the statement which has appeared since publication of the Constitution. They do not regard the concessions as very considerable.
The right hon. Gentleman repeats ad nauseam that we are treating Maltese independence differently. He shows that he does not understand the feeling in Malta about this question. He has shown himself incapable of dealing properly with the situation. He is dismissing as secondary and unimportant the complaint of the Maltese Labour Party about the way in which the Roman Catholic Church behaves in Malta. He does not treat it seriously and that is why he has come to this conclusion.
In his concluding remarks, the right hon. Gentleman said something which surely directly supports the plea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley). The Secretary of State said that he wanted to go out from this Chamber an appeal for co-operation in Malta. He wanted to send a message of good will. But if he refuses to make any concessions whatever to opinion on this side—and after all, although I do not say this boastfully, the Labour Party may soon be the Government of the country—and says, "I am rushing through this Measure on which I have decided arbitrarily and I shall make no concessions to opinion opposite" and then, at the end of the day, wants to send a message of good will to Malta, no one will believe him. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to send a message of good will to Malta and wants co-operation, he can win a response by accepting the Amendment.
8.45 p.m.
If he accepted the Amendment, the atmosphere in Malta would be very different from what it now is among many large sections of the community. The right hon. Gentleman has great responsibility upon him. He claims that he has got concessions from the previous Constitution. They are concessions in some degree, although we do not think that they are very much. However, the Constitution which he has asked us to accept so speedily and with such little


consideration is overwhelmingly the Constitution desired by the Roman Catholic Church in Malta and by the party which supports it. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to create a different atmosphere, he must be prepared to give serious consideration to the Amendment. If he were to accept it, he would show courage and he might transform the whole situation and the prospects for an independent Malta.
If he rejects the Amendment and refuses to make any concessions along these lines, that will merely confirm people in the opinion that he has entered into a bargain with the present Government of Malta and that all the discussions which take place in the House of Commons, even in these rushed and abbreviated debates which are all we are allowed, are a charade, and that he has fixed the whole thing beforehand with the party which is in power, but which certainly does not represent the majority of people in Malta.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: See what it is like.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that it does not represent the majority of people in Malta.
For the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment would be a belated act of statesmanship on his part, but, if, having commited the very grave offence of treating the House of Commons as he has with the Bill, he is determined not merely to rush it through in the timetable which suits his own convenience but also to refuse any Amendment from those who speak from these benches and who may soon speak as the Government of the country, and who certainly speak for many people in Malta, he will merely have added to the offence and will have done something which could lead to a very dangerous situation in Malta. He will have encouraged all those who say that their purpose must be to smash the Constitution because it is a Constitution which cannot protect their rights.
I therefore appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to listen to the House of co-operation and to realise that he can have that co-operation only if he himself Commons, to listen to his own appeal for is prepared to make this gesture.

Mr. Wall: In spite of the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), I cannot see what is behind the Amendment. It seems to be implied that if we should test public opinion in Malta there might be a change of Government before the new Constitution came into effect. At the last General Election, which was under direct British colonial rule, the Malta Labour Party polled about 51,000 votes and the Nationalist Party about 62,000. Later on, in the referendum, the Malta Labour Party asked the voters to vote "No" and got 55,000 votes and the Nationalist Party asked them to vote "Yes" and got 65,000. The smaller parties had various views about spoiling ballot papers or boycotting the poll. It seems to me that the shift of votes between the time of the General Election and the referendum was very small, and that even if there were another election there would be little change and there would be the same balance in the House in Malta as at the present time. They will go through the expense of a general election for no reason that I can see.

Mr. Brockway: As I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman, I have become almost mesmerised by the soothing way in which he has spoken to us. He has been rather like a parent who has been speaking with great sorrow to his children who really do not quite understand. Under that influence, I have begun to wonder whether the situation which many of us have seen in Malta, and with which we are familiar as a result of meeting representatives of Malta and keeping in close touch with developments there, is the true situation, or whether it is represented by the kind of picture which the right hon. Gentleman has given us this afternoon.
The Amendment asks for a general election in Malta before independence and this Constitution are adopted. I was very amused to hear the short intervention of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), because on previous occasions as we have approached independence and new constitutions in various territories his voice has been the most eloquent about the necessity for a general election.
Again and again in his speech the Minister appealed to the precedents of Constitutions in Colonial Territories. I appeal


to him to study the precedents of elections, of the necessity for some reference to the people before those Constitutions are applied. The history of various Colonial Territories shows that there has been an insistence on a General Election before independence was accepted, particularly in those territories where there has been a division among the community.

Sir P. Agnew: What about Zanzibar?

Mr. Brockway: There was an election in Zanzibar, but because the Constitution was imposed before that a revolution followed. I believe that a General Election before the imposition of this Constitution in Malta may save us from serious and grave consequences. As the hon. Member for Haltemprice said, the population in Malta is divided broadly in the ratio of 5 to 6. In that situation, with the intensity of feelings that exist at the present time, I think that the imposition of a Constitution accepted by the 6 and opposed by the 5 may create a very dangerous situation indeed.
I am not a Roman Catholic, but I have a very high regard for the Catholic Church. I believe that Pope John did more towards changing the climate of the world towards peace than any statesman. I believe that Pope Paul in his appeal to the world to put aside the differences of race and race discrimination has made a similar contribution to this great problem. I know what a contribution the Catholic Church has made in the Continent of Africa. When some of us criticise the attitude of the hierarchy in Malta we do not criticise the Catholic Church or the faith of the Catholic religion.
When we discussed this mater previously I remember making an appeal that there should be a reference to the Pope in this matter. I also remember the cynicism that his created on the benches opposite, the suggestion being that the policy pursued by the hierarchy in Malta was necessarily the policy of the Pope, and that there could be no difference. The Bill shows that there can be a difference. Unless I am misinformed, the Government have since made an appeal to the Vatican and the Pope, and the very changes which have been introduced in the Bill, and have been emphasised as being important by

hon. Members on both sides of the House, are the result of the influence which Pope Paul has exerted. That indicates that there can be a difference between Pope Paul and the Vatican, on the one hand, and the application of the Catholic religion in a particular territory, on the other. It is the type of application which has existed in Malta, and not the Catholic Church or the Catholic religion, that we have been criticising this evening.
We ought to have our eyes open to the facts. The overwhelming majority of the people of Malta are Catholics. The overwhelming majority of the members of the Maltese Labour Party are Catholics. There is nothing that a Catholic feels to be more serious than to be told that he has committed a mortal sin—to be interdicted and told that there is no chance of salvation in eternity. If a Catholic is told that by the Archbishop of his Church it is an utter damnation of his soul. Yet the Catholic members of the Labour Party in Malta are told that if they vote Labour or if they assert their right to vote differently from the leadership of the hierarchy they may be condemned. They are not to be allowed to be buried in sacred soil.
In that kind of situation we inevitably have an intensity of feeling between one group and another which may develop into a very grave situation.

Mr. Wall: The hon. Member has made a serious allegation. He has said that the hierarchy in Malta have said that it is a mortal sin to support the Labour Party. What proof has he? As I understand it, this has never been said.

Mr. Brockway: I shall not quote it at this moment, but I should have thought that it was generally
accepted—

Mr. Walter Monslow: It is in The Guardian this week.

Mr. Brockway: —that the attitude of the hierarchy in Malta was that to support the Labour Party, to distribute the literature of the Labour Party, to vote for the Labour Party, to speak for the Labour Party, or to be an executive member of the Labour Party, was a sin.

Mr. Wall: But not a mortal sin. That is quite different.

Mr. Brockway: There are some which are mortal sins and others which are not.

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) has challenged us to produce evidence on this point. I would refer him again to the letter in today's Guardian, written by a Catholic, who, having said that Mr. Mintoff has tended to be bitter about his treatment by the Church, goes on to say:
But how can one wholly blame him seeing that he and his followers are made subject by the Church to excommunication for reading the Labour papers and, indeed, for supporting his political views?

Mr. Brockway: I am not going to press this strongly, because, frankly, I do not know very much about the difference between one kind of sin and another kind. They are all a sin, and some are a mortal sin. Because they are all regarded as sins in this way, inevitably in the situation which exists in Malta there is an intensification of feeling between the 5 and the 6 which may create a very dangerous situation.
9.0 p.m.
I wish, finally, to make this point. The Constitution and the new independence is based on a conception of the future of Malta in which this island is regarded as though it were mainly a centre of military preparations. There is a defence treaty for ten years, and £50 million is to be given as a condition. The tragedy of Malta is that it has been so related to defence in the past. Its dockyards have been linked with naval preparation, and one sees the military presence every where. One can go along that wonderful coast road and for miles see land which could so easily be used for development and become one of the most wonderful tourist resorts in the world just made areas for military training and development—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I find it difficult to relate this part of his speech to the Amendment.

Mr. Brockway: Let me do that in my next sentence, Sir Robert. If these are to be the results of this Constitution and independence and of the agreement made, surely the people have a right to decide in a General Election whether they will accept it or not before it is imposed? That is my argument and I think it a very strong one. The Minister is imposing this and

coming to an agreement with the Prime Minister of Malta, but is not allowing the people to decide in an election. I suggest to him and to the Committee that the Amendment ought to be accepted and that there should be an opportunity for an appeal to the people.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: I wonder whether I can, in a strictly non-controversial sense, get away from some of the religious arguments which have been exchanged and try to return to the Constitutional position vis-à-vis independence at this stage for a self-governing Colony, a subject on which I have spent some considerable time in research. I think there is a case for saying that when we have reached the stage—as we did in the case of Malta a considerable time ago—of granting independence in principle to a dependent territory we do not gain much of what we are trying to gain by seeking, through Parliamentary procedure, to delay that independence by moving Amendments during the Committee stage or any other stage of a Bill.
If it will help to assuage the feelings of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) I will confess that some little time ago I was foolish enough to try to do something in a not dissimilar fashion at the time when Uganda was becoming independent. I thought, as did hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, with regard to the two Lost Counties, as they were called, that conditions could be made better for self-determination in the three territories if we sought to make some changes when independence was almost a fait accompli. The result was not what we might have wished to achieve, and never could have been. I confess now that it was a mistake, and I would say, with respect, that we cannot achieve what we are trying to achieve by Parliamentary methods in this House of Commons when the wheel has turned almost full circle, and we are unable to check it.
I have tried to check whenever and if ever before we have insisted on elections taking place when we have negotiated a treaty of independence with a colonial Government. I find that there are only three possibilities in which our country could have done it. If we have done it, it has been on one of the


three following grounds. The first is when there is a question, does the Colony want independence? I do not think there is any doubt, whatever in the Constitutional argument, that both Mr. Borg Olivier and Mr. Mintoff, however their supporters have voted, have themselves voted in favour of independence. I do not think that Mr. Mintoff would say that when he voted "No" in the referendum he was voting against independence. The overwhelming majority, about 80 per cent. of the people in Malta, are in favour of independence. Both main parties have twice asserted themselves in favour of independence.
Another occasion when we have insisted on an election before independence was when there was a new constitution quite different from the one in being. That is not so in this case for we are enacting the existing Constitution, which goes back a considerable number of years. In so far as there have been modifications made to it they have been made more from the point of view of the Opposition than of the Government of the day. Therefore, it cannot be said that we are trying to bring in a new constitution. The Constitution goes some way to meet the opposition of Mr. Mintoff and his followers and the existing Government have not been happy about the terms of the modifications.
The third occasion when we have insisted on elections before independence has been when a Parliament has been ending its life and it would therefore not be fair to assume that it could carry on government after independence.

Mr. Brockway: Surely the hon. Member is aware of cases in which there has been a General Election before independence because of a division of opinion and the fear of violence between the two sections resulting?

Mr. Bennett: I do not think either condition has applied. Recently there has been an election and there has also been a referendum which, if it showed nothing else, showed that the great majority wanted independence and that question of communal violence is not relevant to Malta.
The third occasion is when a Parliament is ending its life. I am quoting

historic precedents. We have never before undertaken a General Election other than in the three circumstances I have described.
The constitutional position in Malta at the moment is that elections cannot be held unless the Premier himself so advises. I am not sure how we could provide for elections for we would be abrogating the Constitution which we are putting forward because there is no method by which legally held elections could be brought about except on the advice of the Premier. Therefore, I cannot see that the Amendment would have validity unless we were prepared to abrogate the Constitution to which we have given a Second Reading tonight.
I am not entering into religious controversies as I am not very much on one side or the other, but on the constitutional position we must be very careful not to seek to interfere in the internal affairs of Malta in a way in which we would never dream of interfering in the internal affairs of a dozen African countries whose era of independence I have been glad to welcome in the last few years. Had we tried to do this in many other territories, hon. Members opposite would have been among the first to say that it was intolerable interference by the Imperial Government.
I ask them to do no more than accord to Malta the same standards as they have accorded in the era of independence of other Colonial Territories during the last year. On a previous occasion I have made the same sort of proposal that certain hon. Members opposite have made tonight, and I have often regretted it.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: I want to follow the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) inasmuch as I want to support the Amendment, and also on constitutional grounds. I think that on reflection he will agree that there is little in his argument that in Committee we cannot accept an Amendment because it would abrogate the Constitution which we aproved on Second Reading. All that has happened is that we have had Second Reading, and, as is normal, the main debate after Second Reading is taking place on a major Amendment. That is normal, and it has happened on many occasions.
I do not agree with some hon. Members who have suggested that there were certain points in the Second Reading debate which the Secretary of State did not seem properly to understand or the importance of which he did not appreciate. I dissent from that view. I do not think that there has been anything of importance said in the debate which he does not understand or had not thought about before Second Reading. He has discussed these matters with people from Malta and with hon. Members on so many occasions that he was bound to be well aware of all the arguments and causes which might be advanced.
But an argument which he ought to consider is one of practical political importance. I suggest to him that there are two points in his own speeches, particularly in his winding-up speech, which ought to lead him to a practical reconsideration of his attitude to the Amendment. These were the two most important pillars of his policy: first, that we wish Malta to have a good economic future in co-operation with the United Kingdom and, secondly, that he has concluded a Defence Agreement which he regards as a good defence agreement and he hopes that future relations between the United Kingdom and Malta will be such as to allow for the full implementation of that Defence Agreement. I hope that I have not misrepresented the two most important pillars of his speeches.
If he considers the present constitutional position and the attitude of significant sections of the Maltese electorate, he will find that by not accepting the Amendment he is gravely endangering those two points which he regarded as important. First, in the light of recent history, is it not clear that we cannot have a military base, military installations and a military commitment on someone else's territory if we do not have the broad approval of the people of that territory for that defence policy? He is starting a new defence agreement under the most unhappy and unfortunate circumstances.
A decision is involved here which the right hon. Gentleman has not fully reported to the House, although he has addressed hon. Members twice. In his second speech he implied that once an agreement has been reached, we have

to go ahead. But the reports which we have had from Malta during the last 48 hours have proved conclusively that the agreement which he has reached is a very limited agreement. He might argue, "If we have a majority of over 50 per cent. in Malta, the agreement is enough". If the Government had a majority of over 50 per cent., he might argue, an agreement with them was good enough.
9.15 p.m.
This holds true for all sorts of normal arrangements, but not where a new constitution is involved. Why do we always insist in the House that if there is to be the slightest change, not only in the Constitution, be it the written or the unwritten part, but even in the underlying principles of the Constitution, affecting free speech or freedom of assembly, it must never be imposed by one party, even though it has a majority in the House of Commons, upon the rest of the country? We always say—and I do not think that this can be contradicted by hon. Members—that where constitutions are involved and are under discussion we need more than a narrow majority.
It has been proved clearly that it is most doubtful whether the Government in Malta are supported in this matter by a majority of the electorate. The electorate have had no chance of showing their reaction because they have not seen the Constitution, and its implications are only beginning to reach them. Leaving that alone, even if there were a narrow majority it would be quite insufficient, I submit to the Secretary of State and the Committee, for the adoption of the Constitution. What he ought to do where a constitution is concerned is to see, once a plan has been worked out and he has reached agreement on that plan with the Government of the day, what the reactions would be of all the electorate of Malta over the next 12 or 16 weeks and then to allow that crystallisation of opinion to be followed by a General Election.
I do not believe that it is wise, quite apart from the other implications that were raised on Second Reading, for a British statesman to appear before the people of Malta having agreed on a onesided arrangement with the Government of the day and then to say to the people


of Malta, "We are now suggesting to you that this is to be the Constitution".
There is another matter to which I want briefly to refer. In dealing with a number of points made by hon. Members on Second Reading, the Secretary of State said, "It might well be that these are desirable laws." This is a point on which I should very much like to have the attention of the Secretary of State who has been very courteous so far. The right hon. Gentleman said during his first speech and again when winding up the Second Reading debate that hon. Members had raised a number of important points, but he suggested that these points could be embodied in desirable laws by the Maltese Parliament after independence or at any other time if it so desired. He implied that this was something that it would have to deal with. I agree, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if this freedom is to be created for the electorate of Malta and for a Parliament resulting under this new Constitution there has to be a firm belief by the vast majority of the Maltese electorate that they will be under a Constitution which allows for the completely free expression of their views?
I might submit to the Committee, without immodesty, that this ought to be an acceptable argument to all hon. Members of the Committee. If significant sections of the electorate start out with a firm conviction that they are going to work under a new constitutional set of laws which gives an. equal chance to every sector of the electorate and every individual of the electorate, surely, they will have confidence that "those desirable laws", to use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase, will be brought about in the new Parliament which will be created as a result of the new Constitution.
There are other hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate and therefore I conclude by urging the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider, before he makes up his mind on his reactions to this Amendment, whether there are not very serious practical political reasons concerning the best possible future relations between the people of this country and the people of Malta for his accepting, on behalf of the Government, the Amendment, thereby doing something to reach more agreement here and, far more important, to give an earnest to the people of Malta and to the Opposition

in Malta that he is not in any way trying to impose upon them in agreement with the Government of the day what they do not really want.
If there were a period for reaction in Malta and for the crystallisation of opinion there and then an election, which our Amendment allows, T think that the cause of the friendship of Malta for the United Kingdom in the future would be very much better served.

Mr. William Yates: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). It is important that before these changes take place, as in South-West Arabia, the people be consulted before a Constitution be given to them by the Government of the day. I do not dispute that the present Prime Minister in Malta is the Prime Minister of Malta and commands the authority of the Maltese people. Those of us who have had the good fortune to visit Malta—after all, my former whip, Mr. Wakefield, is the High Commissioner, so it was a good opportunity for me to have a long talk with him when I visited Malta—know that all Maltese political parties, whether it is Mr. Ganado or Mr. Mintoff, who happened to be at my own college at Oxford, agree that Malta wants independence, but who is to pay? That is an absolute fundamental in discussing the future of Malta.
A defence Agreement has been proposed to the present Prime Minister. Is this the right way in which to start off the new Constitution? I doubt it. Would it not be better to think again about the Defence Agreement which is part of this arrangement? I am not too certain that the Opposition in the future might not attempt to overturn the Constitution in the long run because of the Defence Agreement for finance. Is it necessary to tie finance for Malta to defence? Are there not business interests or other ways in which we could agree to let the people of Malta have the finance they need?
What does Malta need above everything else, if we are to accept the proposition in the Amendment? The Opposition say that, if there were an election first, all the problems of Malta could be discussed. Malta desires, above all things, industrial power and water. She cannot have either of these things


without first having the money with which to extract water from the sea and convert it. She needs industrial power—electricity. I suggest that the proposition made by the Opposition is probably in this case a very wise one. I think that it is wrong, when a country wants to get independence and when it wants finance, that finance should be tied to a defence obligation. Malta does not need a defence obligation at all. I cannot see that any other country in the world is particularly interested in occupying Malta or worrying about Malta's strategic position.
Therefore, in discussing the whole problem of an election first, the Opposition in this case have got it right. I myself would say, having discussed this problem with the Maltese politicians in the past, that if it is pressed to a vote I would be bound to abstain, because I do not think that it is either strategic ally necessary—[Interruption.] It is not a question of being yellow. We hear too much about these old Goldwater techniques. If the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) insists that I vote against the Amendment while he sits there—

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I shall not sit here. I shall vote, too.

Mr. Yates: If I felt strongly about a matter, both the Secretary of State and the Chief Whip know that I would have no worry at all about voting against them, if I thought it right and proper for the people of Malta. My right hon. Friend is, therefore, faced with a serious situation and in this case I honestly suggest to him that he would be wise not to tie Malta down to a defence obligation involving money which she vitally requires for the future.
Unless I hear something slightly better from my right hon. Friend I will have no alternative but to take the course I have said. Knowing the people of Malta—and I have no difficulty in discussing this matter with the Catholics there, having met the Archbishop personally—I say that it would be unwise for this country to tie Malta's financial needs to defence in a world in which I do not think it is necessary for us so to do.

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) made a

typically courageous and sincere contribution to our deliberations, and I am glad that we have had confirmation from the benches opposite of the unhappy mood in which the Committee finds itself in approaching the conclusion to our discussions on this Bill. Surely the Secretary of State will now concede that the whole Committee—apart from two or three supporters behind him—is unhappy about the way the Bill has been brought to Parliament, the way it has been given to us at the last possible moment, without time for us to consider the provisions—the provisions of the Constitution, let alone the Bill itself—and the way it is being rushed through in one day.
I am not so much concerned about whether we in the House of Commons have sufficient time to decide whether or not this is the Constitution for Malta. I am more concerned with whether the people of Malta really want independence with this Constitution. I believe that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) was wrong when he said that the majority of people in Malta want independence with this constitution. There is no proof of that. When the Nationalist Party won the elections they did not win them with a mandate for independence—certainly not a mandate for independence on this Constitution, which 99 per cent. of the people of Malta have not yet had an opportunity of considering.
Only tonight are the people of Malta being allowed to examine this Constitution. It is even too soon for us to feel the reaction of the political leaders of Malta to this Constitution, after they have considered the proposals in consultation with their supporters. It is too soon for us and for them, and I ask the Secretary of State to answer a question which has several times been addressed to him today but which he has still not answered: what is the necessity for rushing this Bill through now?
The Secretary of State pointed out the great similarity between this Bill and other independence Measures which the House of Commons has considered in the past, but there is one great difference which appears in the Clause to which we are proposing an Amendment. In every other Independence Bill a date


has been determined, a date reached by discussion and agreement with the political leaders of the country concerned and a date which has been announced openly so that everybody was aware of it. There is no such date in this Bill, and the people of Malta have not been consulted about such a date. It has been cooked up as a result of confidential discussions which the Secretary of State has had with the Prime Minister of Malta and which have suddenly been brought to a conclusion because of the dying days of this Parliament.

Mr. W. Yates: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell the Committee of the reaction of the political leaders in Malta to these proposals?

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Stonehouse: We have not yet had an opportunity of hearing in detail what are the reactions of the leaders of the political parties in Malta itself. What we do know is that the Malta Labour Party, for instance, has sent a deputation here—it is here tonight. It has already expressed—and a quotation from The Times has already been read out—great misgivings about this procedure of pushing through independence by means of a Constitution that no one has had a chance of considering.
Why is the Secretary of State doing this? I accuse him of doing this because he knows that the Labour Party here will win the election in this country and he wants to push through, in the last possible few days of Conservative rule, an independence Bill for Malta on a Constitution that he knows the people of Malta would not support if they had a fair choice in the matter. If Dr. Borg Olivier and his party really have the support of the Maltese people for this Constitution, as in other aspects, of their Administration, why do they need fear an election?
Surely, Dr. Borg Olivier has achieved a great diplomatic success in pulling off this agreement with the Secretary of State and would welcome an opportunity to go back to his people saying, "I have been in London for nine weeks. It took a long time to get the Secretary of State to have discussions with me. because he had so much to do, but eventually he did have discussions with me, and I have succeeded. We have a Constitution with which I can agree, and which I am pre- 

pared to recommend to you. Therefore, with confidence, I ask for your support at a General Election." If the Malta Prime Minister is confident of having the support of his people, he would welcome our Amendment.
We know that there are other sections of the community that would be most unhappy about the Constitution we are now forcing down their throats but which they have not had a chance of considering. We do not yet know what their final reaction to it will be, but we do know what their reactions have been to past proposals and what they have said about the Roman Catholic Church having so much influence in the Island.
It is all very well for us to brush this off, but I spent a little time in the island and spoke to people who have suffered from the dictatorial attitude of the church authorities. I find it remarkable that, despite the great pressure of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Malta, the Labour Party there continues to receive such tremendous support. We have to remember that it is a sin, mortal or otherwise, to read the Labour Party newspaper; that it is a sin to print the newspaper; that it is a sin to place advertisements with the newspaper, and that it is a sin to sell the newspaper. That being the position in Malta, it is truly surprising that the Labour Party in a country which is 99 per cent. Roman Catholic should receive the support of does.
I remember meeting supporters of the party who are devout Catholics themselves. They almost wept when they told me of what some of their coreligionists who supported the Labour Party had to go through. I heard the story of an old woman who was refused absolution because her son—it was not her own sin—had been selling the Labour Party newspaper. There is the more recent example of the president of the labour women's section who was knocked down by a car as she was leaving church. Her family were refused permission to bury the woman in consecrated ground because she had been a member and a supporter of the Labour Party.
That is the atmosphere in which these people have to live. How can they have free political activity when the Church is constantly terrorising them spiritually in this way? That is why


we say that if the people of Malta want to accept this environment for independence, let that be their own choice. It is not for us to decide the political or other environment in which they choose to live—certainly not for us to dictate to them. None of us on this side is trying to do that, but we say that they must have the right to choose before independence and the independence Constitution is forced upon them.
I have already asked in an interjection that the Secretary of State should show us the difference between British Guiana and Malta. We are glad that there is not the violence in Malta that there is today in British Guiana, but what is the difference in principle? There is disagreement in British Guiana between the political parties. There is disagreement between the political parties in Malta, yet the Secretary of State is holding up independence in British Guiana but is pushing it through in Malta.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the goodwill of all of us on this side of the Committee. We have allowed the Second Reading to go through without a Division. We are prepared to cooperate to that extent. Will the right hon. Gentleman now please be sympathetic, not to our outrageous demands on this side of the Committee, but to the wishes of the people of Malta to have some choice in the matter before their country has to accept the Constitution which he has decided in consultation with the Prime Minister of Malta in secret?

The Chairman: Mr. Duncan Sandys.

Mr. W. Yates: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Yates: On a point of order. I wished to ask the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), before he sat down, about the excommunications in the island to which he referred.

The Chairman: I am sorry, but the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) resumed his seat and I called the Minister.

Mr. Yates: Further to that point of order.

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Yates: I beg the Chair's pardon. I rose to ask a question of the hon. Member for Wednesbury, who gave way.

Hon. Members: No.

The Chairman: Order. When one Member resumes his seat it is incumbent upon the Chair to call another Member, and I called Mr. Duncan Sandys.

Mr. Sandys: All other speakers have been very brief and I will be brief, also. The Amendment proposes that elections should be held before independence. I have listened to the views which have been expressed, but I do not understand what exact purpose these elections would serve. As we know from the debate, there are two main issues. One is the question of independence. Should Malta have independence? The other is: what form should the independence constitution take?
The elections will not decide whether the Maltese people want independence. We have got past that stage now. All of us have accepted that Malta is to have independence, and that decision is supported by the two main parties which obtained 76 per cent. of the votes at the last General Election. I do not think that anybody is seriously questioning that decision at this stage.
But I do not understand how the holding of elections would help to secure agreement, or a greater measure of agreement, on the form of Malta's future Constitution. Is it really suggested that elections would help to resolve the differences that exist between the Maltese parties on the Constitution? I have not heard anybody explain why it is thought that the holding of elections would bring the parties closer together.
It is very unfair to say that these negotiations took so long, because I had not the time to take part in them. I sat for hours and hours, day after day, and sometimes half through the night, with the Prime Minister of Malta and his delegation, trying to reach agreement. The length of the negotiations is not due to the fact that I have neglected my duties, or have not been available to take part in these discussions.
But, having spent so long in these negotiations and talks, having put so many night hours into them, I assure the House that I would readily allow the whole process to go on for another few


months if I thought that we could get agreement. I attach every bit as much importance to agreement in a matter of this kind as does any other hon. Member. It is infinitely preferable if we can base a decision of this kind on agreement. But, after all the talks, all the conferences and all the consultations which we have had over the last 18 months, with no give at all in the various political parties, I do not see that, as a result of having a heated election campaign, with everybody abusing each other—which happens in elections in many countries, and Malta is certainly no exception—they will all love each other much more, and we shall all find it much easier to resolve differences which we have not been able to resolve during the past months.
I assure the Committee—and I hope that hon. Members believe me—that if I thought that elections would bring about agreement, or even the narrowing of differences, I certainly would not hesitate to go ahead with that proposal.

Mr. Driberg: That is not the point, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so. The point is to let the people of Malta have a genuine free choice to express their political views and to elect a Government—perhaps the same Government and perhaps a different Government. They did not have that genuine free choice at the last election, which was seriously interfered with. They should have it at an election properly supervised by international observers.

Mr. Sandys: One of the arguments is that the last election was not fair and that the Church exercised an undue influence. If one has an election or a referendum, as in the last instance, which is closely tied up with ecclesiastical interests, I think that it is too much to hope that the Church will not express its views on these matters. But I do not intend to express an opinion whether the last elections were held in a fair manner or not, any more than I would express an opinion on elections in many other parts of our Colonial Territories or elsewhere.
Hon. Members must take it that elections are not always held in overseas territories in exactly the same manner or in accordance with exactly the same standards as those to which we have grown accustomed in this country. Of course not—and it is no good pretending that they are. I will not express an opinion

on whether those elections were fair or on exactly what influences were exerted. All I say is that those who make this complaint should have taken the matter to the courts. I gather that the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) says that the Maltese will do so. If necessary, they should have sought to exercise their right to bring it to the Privy Council. There is a right of appeal to the Privy Council.
Some maintain that it is not a question of undue influence being exercised at elections, but that the electoral law, in relation to a definition of what is undue influence and corrupt practice, is unsatisfactory. If it is true—and I am not expressing an opinion—that the law itself is at fault, I see no reason to suppose that fresh elections held under it will be any fairer than elections held under it on previous occasions. No matter how many observers there are, those observers have to observe the implementation of the law. There is nothing else they can observe. They cannot create rules of their own.
But I am not saying for a moment that I consider the electoral law in Malta to be unsatisfactory. It all turns on the question of the difference between the words "spiritual and temporal", and the words "moral and material", and nobody has ever been able to show me the difference between moral and spiritual or temporal and material.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. M. Foot: What about paying tribute unto Caesar for the things which are Caesar's and unto God for the things which are God's?

Mr. Sandys: As no one seems to have put a case to the courts, it is difficult to establish whether the law in Malta is or is not unsatisfactory. These are only two circumstances in which I would think it would be right to insist on elections before independence. One circumstance would be if the life of the Parliament in the country concerned was very near to its end. But that is not so in Malta. The other circumstance in which I think it would be right to ask for elections before independence—and this applies to British Guiana, which has been mentioned, I think somewhat inappropriately, in connection with this debate—would be if a new electoral system were being introduced. Then there


would be very good reasons for starting a country off on independence with a Parliament elected under the new system.

Mrs. Castle: Is not another very good occasion on which elections should be allowed one in which a very large minority of the people concerned ask this House of Commons that independence shall not be granted to Malta before elections have been held? Are they not the people who are best able to appreciate whether or not the elections held while we still have responsibility would be likely to be fairer than those held after we have handed responsibility over to an unrepresentative and reactionary Government?

Mr. Sandys: I know that there are the three minority parties which still do not want independence, but, as I have said, I really think that we have got to the point where we have to take it that we have decided that Malta is to be independent; and I do not think that that is an issue which could usefully be put to an election. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady talked about a minority. I thought that she was referring to the small parties.

Mrs. Castle: No. This is the second time that the right hon. Gentleman has quite deliberately misrepresented me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If it is not deliberate, then the right hon. Gentleman is not fit for his high office and cannot understand English. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I will with draw and substitute for "deliberately misrepresented me" the phrase "incompetently misunderstood me".
I deliberately said a "large majority"; I was not referring to the three small minority parties. I was talking about the Malta Labour Party, which is a very large minority, and is at this moment asking the House of Commons not to give independence until there have been elections. They are the people I am talking about.

Mr. Sandys: The Malta Labour Party has been more insistent than anyone else in its desire for the grant of immediate and early independence, and I very much question whether, if it were in the reverse position, it would have felt inclined to have fresh elections before independence. I very much doubt that. In any case, to come to the practical issue, I think that the Committee will realise that I could not possibly at this stage introduce a new condition without calling in question everything that has been agreed after these long and difficult negotiations.

Mr. M. Foot: Did not the right hon. Gentleman inform those with whom he was negotiating that the House of Commons would have the right to decide this matter? What right had he to make a package deal which is agreed on everything? Does he mean to say that when he asked the House to rush this Measure through in one day he was not in any case intending to pay any attention to what the House of Commons had to say on the matter? Does he think that that is a good example of democracy for the new Constitution? It is utterly unconstitutional that the right hon. Gentleman should not have informed those with whom he was negotiating that the matter would have to be submitted to the British House of Commons.

Mr. Sandys: I happen to have it on record in a public communiqué that the ultimate responsibility for the future constitution of Malta rests with the British Parliament. It is not often that one is in as good a position as that. None the less, for the reasons I have explained, I must advise the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 85, Noes 149.

Division No. 141.]
AYES
[9.51 p.m.]


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.


Beaney, Alan
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Collick, Percy
Fletcher, Eric


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Benson, Sir George
Dalyell, Tam
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Diamond, John
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.


Bowles, Frank
Dodds, Norman
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Driberg, Tom
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Hannan, William




Harper, Joseph
McInnes, James
Short, Edward


Hart, Mrs. Judith
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hayman, F. H.
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Skeffington, Arthur


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Small, William


Hilton, A. V.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Holman, Percy
Mason, Roy
Steele, Thomas


Houghton, Douglas
Mendelson, J. J.
Stonehouse, John


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Millan, Bruce
Stross, SirBarnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Hunter, A. E.
Milne, Edward
Swingler, Stephen


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Mitchison, G. R.
Taverne, D.


Janner, Sir Barnett
Moody, A. S.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Kelley, Richard
Oliver, G. H.
Whitlock, William


Lawson, George
Pavitt, Laurence
Wilkins, W. A.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Rankin, John



Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lipton, Marcus
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Loughlin, Charles
Rogers, C. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Mr. Redhead.


Lubbock, Eric
Ross, William





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pitman, Sir James


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Gurden, Harold
Pitt, Dame Edith


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pounder, Rafton


Atkins, Humphrey
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Batsford, Brian
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pym, Francis


Bidgood, John C.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bitten, John
Hastings, Stephen
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)


Bingham, R. M.
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hopkins, Alan
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Box, Donald
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ropner, Col, Sir Leonard


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Russell, Sir Ronald


Braine, Bernard
Iremonger, T. L.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Brewis, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. SirWalter
James, David
Sharples, Richard


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Shaw, M.


Bryan, Paul
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Shepherd, William


Buck, Antony
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Skeet, T. H. H.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Kirk, Peter
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Campbell, Gordon
Lambton, Viscount
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stainton, Keith


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Chataway, Christopher
Litchfield, [...]. John
Stodart, J. A.


Cleaver, Leonard
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cole, Norman
Longbottom, Charles
Tapsell, Peter


Cooper-Key, Sir Neil
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Corfield, F. V.
MacArthur, Ian
Teeling, Sir William


Coulson, Michael
McLaren, Martin
Thomas, Rt. Hon. Peter (Conway)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Marten, Neil
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Curran, Charles
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Dance, James
Mawby, Ray
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Cordon


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Turner, Colin


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Mills, Stratton
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec
Miscampbell, Norman
Walder, David


Duncan, Sir James
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Elliott, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Morgan, William
Wall, Patrick


Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Neave, Airey
Ward, Dame Irene


Finlay, Graeme
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fisher, Nigel
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Whitelaw, William


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wise, A. R.


Freeth, Denzil
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Goodhew, Victor
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Worsley, Marcus


Grant-Ferris, R.
Percival, Ian



Green, Alan
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gresham Cooke, R.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Peel.

It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Malta Independence Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

Orders of the Day — MALTA INDEPENDENCE BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move. That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I should like to thank the House for its co-operation in carrying through this Measure all in one day. Once again, may I say how much I regret that it was necessary to proceed at this pace, but I am grateful to all hon. Members on both sides of the House for having helped us as they have.
The people of Malta are old and trusted friends, and they have fought with us for the cause of freedom in two world wars. Their steadfastness and courage in times of danger have won our admiration, and over the years there has grown up a very real affection between Britain and Malta. I am sure, therefore, that both countries are glad to know that after independence the close connections between us will be maintained.
We congratulate the people of Malta on the resumption of their sovereignty which they voluntarily entrusted to us a century and half ago. We wish to assure them of our continued friendship and we wish them well as an independent nation.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. Bottomley: It would have been much happier if today's debate had followed the usual lines of a unanimous expression of our desire that a country should proceed to independence without any of the recriminations that have been expressed today. But that was hardly likely in the circumstances.
The Secretary of State asked why there should be a different approach on this occasion from what has happened in connection with other independence Bills. I would have thought that it was quite obvious. The constitutions of other independent nations have been prepared by the Colonial Office or an independent body. In this case it was a Government which did not carry the

majority of the electorate with it which drafted the Constitution, and it was presented to the people of Malta in such a way that they learnt about it through the Press.
It was only because of its appearance in the Press that the major opposition party proceeded to London to learn more about it—not from Her Majesty's Government, but from the Opposition, to the extent that it was possible for the Opposition to give them information. It was therefore inevitable that we could not have the usual harmony on this occasion.
However, I am sure that we can conclude in a spirit of harmony. The Secretary of State thought that the criticism of him was a little harsh. He said that his Bible was the report of the Constitutional Conference held last year. If so, why have we had all these other deliberations? Why the referendum? If, as a result of considered thought, the right hon. Gentleman believed this to be the document upon which independence could be given, why was not it presented to the House long ago, so that we could have considered it reasonably and come to a decision not in haste, as we have had to today, but in a manner suitable to this honourable House and in a way which would have been a credit to a Bill of this kind?
We wish the people of Malta well. We say that the Government of Malta have a heavy responsibility to see that independence is carried out in the traditions of democracy and freedom, as practised by this Government so long as they were the protectors of the Maltese people. If this is done the Maltese Government will earn the good will of their people—serving as a Government for a short time, I hope, so that after another election, like the one that we are shortly to have in this country, a Government of the liking to the people of Malta will be in power. I would prefer that to have been done before independence, but I hope that soon after independence there will be a General Election in Malta.
On behalf of my party, I wish godspeed to Malta.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. M. Foot: The Secretary of State has no right to imagine that the House concludes the discussion of the Bill in a


spirit of good will, because he has not acted in a manner which can enable the House to express its views in that sense. He admitted that he was asking the House to do something which was certainly something out of the ordinary and certainly inconvenient, and he has thanked the House for co-operating with the Government in exceptional circumstances.
I am extremely dubious whether it was right for this House, in the interests of the people of Malta, to give the Government as much co-operation as they have received I am all the more persuaded to take that view by the reply which the right hon. Gentleman gave to the proposals made by my hon. Friends in the Amendment to postpone the introduction of independence until fresh elections had been held.
When the right hon. Gentleman decided to rush this through he did not take proper account of a number of circumstances. First, he did not take account of the circumstances in Malta and what would be the almost inevitable response of a large proportion of the population there. I wish to read to the House afresh what was the comment made by Dr. Muscat which is quoted in The Times today, because he speaks for a large number of people in Malta who have the right to be heard in this House of Commons on a matter affecting them so acutely. This is the first opinion which, when he introduced his Bill in this fashion, the right hon. Gentleman so deliberately sought to disregard. Dr. Muscat said:
The constitution, as now proposed, will lead only to a clerical dictatorship against which the Malta Labour Party and our people will defend themselves. We have exhausted all peaceful ways and means of achieving a democratic form of Government. We went to the socialist international; we went to the United Nations; we came here to discuss the constitution. All this was to no avail. It did not serve as a warning to the British Government, which pretends to be the champion of democracy.
Now we shall have to see, in the months and years ahead, whether the warning from Dr. Muscat and those on whose behalf he speaks was wiser than the guidance which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the House. When he decided to rush through this matter in this way the right hon. Gentleman disregarded the opinion of those in Malta who certainly

had the right to have their opinion—not to determine the outcome—but to have their opinion taken much more fully into account than the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to do.
Then it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman—which he disregarded—to consider the position of this House of Commons. I am not making any boasts or claims about what is to happen after a General Election in this country. Very often too many boasts are made from this side of the House and too many claims from the other side of the House. I think that a responsible Government dealing with the future of a territory for which we are accountable must take into reckoning the situation in the British House of Commons. What a Government have the right to do, and could do wisely in the first, second, third or even fourth year of their existence they are not equally entitled to do in the fifth year in circumstances, let the right hon. Gentleman remember, which are unique in this country and designed to extend the life of a Government so near to the end of the legal period.
It was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) who, when these matters were being discussed in the war-time Parliament, said that it would be quite improper in normal circumstances for a British Government to extend the period in which they held office to the very ultimate legal limit to which they were entitled. That was his view, with which people may agree or disagree. The right hon. Gentleman is a Member of a Government who, for their own convenience, presumably—or what they thought to be their own convenience—have extended the life of the British Parliament to a greater degree than any Government in British history; and in that time which the Government have allowed themselves by that process the right hon. Gentleman decided that it was right for him to press through this Measure. That was the second thing which the right hon. Gentleman disregarded when he went ahead in this fashion.
The third thing he did—I do not say that this is unique or that there are no precedents, but he should have taken it into account before acting in this fashion—was to make an agreement with the present Prime Minister of Malta


about the terms of the Constitution and the proposals which were to be presented to the House of Commons. I understand, of course, that when a Government negotiates with another Government of that kind it is bound to enter into general agreements with them, but it must always be insisted that the British Parliament has the final authority. The right hon. Gentleman nods his head, and when I raised this matter earlier he said that it was made quite clear that the British Parliament is the final authority. That was very kind, very nice and very courteous of him, but of course he is bound to do that and that is a different question.
I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking to Prime Minister of Malta that the Bill and the Constitution would go through in exactly the form to which he had agreed. If he said that it was quite improper. If he was to protect the authority of the British House of Commons he should have said, "This is what I should like to recommend to the House of Commons, but it may well be that the House of Commons will wish to change something in the Bill. It may well be that those circumstances will exist, particularly because I am the spokesman of a Government whose authority is almost exhausted." If he said that—

Mr. Sandys: No, I did not say that.

Mr. Foot: Of course he did not say it, because he took his responsibilities much too lightly. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "I am not required to make statements of that nature". He could have phrased it more elegantly, but the substantial point remains. He knows perfectly well that it is possible in a few months for there to be a change of Government in this country and that when negotiating on matters of this kind he should take that into account. The authority of a Government dealing with such matters as this is not so great in the last week or two of a Parliament as it is at the beginning of a Parliament. If he does not understand that, he does not understand democratic processes.
The right hon. Gentleman should have made clear to the Prime Minister of Malta that when he introduced this Bill and the Constitution in the House of

Commons it would be open to us to make Amendments. He did not do that but made a bargain outside. He pretty well admitted that to me. It was a quite improper thing for him not to have made clear that especially in these circumstances, the House of Commons might wish to make Amendments.

Mr. Sandys: My democratic duty to the House of Commons does not include a duty to advise my hon. Friends to vote in a way which I consider wrong.

Mr. Foot: It does not involve that at all, but the right hon. Gentleman says that he made a bargain. He said that he made an agreement with the Prime Minister of Malta that the whole thing would go through in the way he agreed. [Interruption.] If he looks up the Report of the debate he will see that he said that. He had no right to make such an agreement. In these circumstances, if he had acted responsibly, he should have warned the Prime Minister of Malta, particularly in view of the whole background of the matter and the position in the House of Commons, and particularly in view of his own flimsy flimsy authority—although I do not expect him to have expressed it in those terms—that when he submitted the matter to the House of Commons, the House would have the right to make Amendments. [Laughter.]
Hon. Members opposite laugh about these matters and treat them as trivial, but we have this major Measure affecting the whole future of Malta in circumstances in which hardly an hon. Member opposite has read the documents.

Mr. W. Yates: Where is the Opposition?

Mr. Foot: I am speaking for myself; let the hon. Member speak for himself. I guarantee that very few hon. Members opposite have read these documents. It is a scandalous situation.

Mr. Wall: Has the hon. Member read them?

Mr. Foot: I have not had time to read them all. [Laughter.] That is one of my complaints. Hon. Members may laugh, but the British House of Commons, which is supposed to be the exemplar of democracy, thanks to the time-table laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, is passing through this


Measure when hardly an hon. Member has read the Constitution. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is a good procedure?
Even more important, the parties in Malta, as has been shown—not merely the Malta Labour Party, but those who speak for other parties, who have a right to speak, even though they are not in favour of independence—have not been able to study the matter. The right hon. Gentleman has forced through the Measure in a manner calculated to cause the most distress and opposition in Malta. Is that what he wanted? Does he think that it is a clever thing to have done? Does he think that it is a brilliant piece of diplomacy or Parliamentary skill to push through a Measure in a way which will make it least effective in being carried out in Malta?
The right hon. Gentleman said that his judgment was that he had to press it through now because in his view no improvement was possible in the next few months. That is his main case. There are not many hon. Members opposite who were present at the time, and I will therefore repeat for their benefit what he said. He said that the reason why he must conclude the whole matter now was that in his judgment no purpose would be served by any further negotiations and any further discussions. He said that it was much better to ring down the curtain because he had gone through the whole matter so extensively in the past weeks and months that in his judgment nothing further of advantage could be procured.
We are asked to rush through the Measure largely on our estimate of the correctness of the right hon. Gentleman's judgment. Some of his hon. Friends may have faith in his judgment, but I have no great faith in it. It is not only a question of what has happened in Malta. There have been other places in which the right hon. Gentleman has had a lot of influence. This is not concerned with the question of his judgment on the Bill, but it affects our consideration of his judgment. I remind the House of Cyprus, British Guiana and Southern Rhodesia. The right hon. Gentleman has had a lot to do with all those places. There always seems to be some fresh china shop where he can apply his special bovine touch.
The right hon. Gentleman need not think that the House of Commons has great faith in his judgment. There is hardly a place where his influence has been brought to bear where it has not resulted in riots and rebellion afterwards. He is very complacent about these matters. He hurried off to Cyprus. He was the man to go there and solve it all. It was a good deal worse after he had been there than before he went. There is British Guiana. Is it a coincidence that it always seems to turn out this way? He knows about Aden, too. He visited Aden. I had forgotten that one on the list. I am a very theoretical kind of a fellow, but he is one of those who says that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. On that basis, what about these places?
The right hon. Gentleman has an extremely dismal record of success. Hon. Member opposite may say that it is not his fault. It may be that it is not his fault, but it so happens that his judgment on what was to happen in all those countries proved wrong. He gets into a frame of mind after a while that he determines to push through Measures exactly as on this occasion. He reaches a point at which his well-known patience, like Hitler's, is exhausted. He gets into a state—I am not quite sure whether this is a Parliamentary expression—in which he suffers at the end of his pursuits from what I call bloody-mindedness. In the case of British Guiana he said, "I am fed up with more discussions and I am determined to push this through."
The fact of the matter is that the right hon. Gentleman, as I have said, has forced through this Measure primarily on the claim that we should accept his judgment about the prospects in Malta. I fear that, with the best will in the world, there is very little evidence for supposing that the right hon. Gentleman's judgment is correct. The difficult question arises as to how the people in Malta, who have been so shabbily and shamefully treated by the right hon. Gentleman, should deal with the question. I do not mean the Prime Minister of Malta, who has got what he wanted from the right hon. Gentleman. I do not mean the Archbishop of Malta, who also has got what he wanted from the right hon. Gentleman.


I mean those who have been trying to establish democracy in Malta, not merely for the past few months, but for many years. Their chief opponents in trying to establish democracy in Malta have been those who are most satisfied with the Bill. These are the facts about what has gone on in Malta.
The question arises: as a result of the Bill to which we are now asked to give a Third Reading, what should those in Malta who have been struggling to establish democracy, with so little assistance from the right hon. Gentleman and some of his predecessors, do about it? I very much hope that they will not resort to any form of violence. I hope that they will restrain themselves to the very maximum. It would be appalling if the bitterness which is in Malta were to express itself in the same way as the bitterness in British Guiana, and if violence were to occur. It would be shocking. I appeal to the Malta Labour Party, despite its justified complaints against the right hon. Gentleman and Her Majesty's Government, to do everything in its power to make independence successful.
I hope that the Malta Labour Party will do all it can, despite all its legitimate grievances, despite the fact that the British House of Commons has behaved in the most monstrous manner in the way in which independence has been given to Malta. I still hope that the Malta Labour Party will try to make independence successful. If it is unable to make it successful, and if events of the kind which have occurred in some other territories for which the right hon. Gentleman has been responsible do occur in Malta, his will be the responsibility.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Wall: I suspect that some of the rather synthetic sounds and fury to which we have just listened from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) were probably aroused because the House is to adjourn next week and probably will not meet again until after the General Election.
As I understood it, the basis of the hon. Gentleman's case was that we have not had time to study the constitutional documents. Those who take a real interest in Malta will know, as my right hon.

Friend the Secretary of State said, that this constitution is based on the draft constitution, which was considered some weeks ago by the Malta Parliament. I have in my hands the Malta Labour Party's amendments to that constitution. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale could have obtained these amendments to the draft Constitution in exactly the same way as I have. As was said on Second Reading, there have been only a certain number of changes in the constitution which, though they are important, do not alter very many of the pages in the Bill.
I rise for only two minutes to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, first, for the fair and masterly way he has piloted the Bill through the House, and, secondly, for the very great patience and skill in negotiation he has shown over 18 months, negotiating with all political parties in Malta, particularly with the Prime Minister of Malta, Dr. Borg Olivier. I hope that the Prime Minister of Malta thinks that the many weeks he spent in London away from his own country, negotiating for the independence of his country, have, now that we are to pass the Bill, been well worth while.
I want, finally, to dissociate myself entirely from the violent attack delivered by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) on the Archbishop of Malta. It was both one-sided and unfair. I pay tribute to Archbishop Gonzi, who has only fulfilled his pastoral duty in guiding and advising his flock. The hon. Members for Barking (Mr. Driberg) and Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) tried to set off the Archbishop against the Vatican.
Whatever the Roman Catholic Church may be, I think all hon. Members will agree that it is a pretty well disciplined body. Some may think that it is too well disciplined. It is inconceivable that an archbishop could express views contrary to those of the Vatican over the long period that this quarrel has endured in Malta.
In spite of the violent attack by some hon. Members I echo the hope of hon. Members on both sides of the House that independence for Malta may bring a new spirit of conciliation and co-operation between the political parties there and bring a great future to the George Cross island which has twice saved Christendom.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Driberg: It is very extraordinary that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), of all people, should try to pretend at this late date that the Roman Catholic Church is a monolithic body. If there is one thing that the Vatican Council has shown, rather to the surprise of people outside the Catholic Church, it is that there are many different strands and emphases and many different points of opinion—indeed, quite fundamental differences—on many issues. So it is not the least surprising that anyone who knows anything about the world or the Church knows perfectly well that some national hierarchies are much more liberal than others and some much more retrograde than others. I suppose that the Maltese hierarchy is about the most retrograde in the world, even more so than the Irish, and that is saying a lot. So do not let us have any more of that humbug from the hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State and hon. Members opposite will not be in the least surprised that we on this side of the House shall continue to debate the Third Reading for a little while longer in view of what my hon. Friend called the bloody-mindedness with which he and the Government have treated the House. Admittedly, the right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly expressed regret for that, but it was quite unnecessary, as he knows very well. However, we shall not keep the House more than two or three hours more, so hon. Members opposite need not be too worried.
My hon. Friend referred to British Guiana, where the right hon. Gentleman has reintroduced flogging recently, a hallmark of civilisation in that part of the world. He flogs the Guianese, but merely has to "whip" hon. Members opposite, and, of course, he automatically gets his majority, and gets his Bill and his constitution through absolutely automatically.
Actually, I am a little surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) seemed at all surprised at one point in his speech at the conduct of the Government. They treat Parliament with the same contempt with which they treat the Maltese people. I thought that one argument that the right

hon. Gentleman has used from time to time in the course of the discussions on the Bill was a little surprising. I could not follow it.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed surprised that we were picking on particular paragraphs and clauses in the Constitution which, he said, are all common form. Parliament has repeatedly passed without comment similar paragraphs and sections in other independence Measures. Of course we treat this one differently, because, as he said in another context, Malta is very different from other Colonial Territories. It is a unique island. It is an island which all of us, however much we may differ about the constitution, love.
We like very much the Maltese people. We admire their record, their courage, their gallantry. In all that, of course, we agree with hon. Members opposite. But because they are different, and because there is this uniquely horrible and uniquely backward hierarchy sitting on their backs, we have to treat them differently and we have to view with acute suspicion paragraphs and clauses in a Constitution or a Bill, which in relation to other Colonies which are free from that particular menace would probably pass unopposed and uncondemned.
Also, as the right hon. Gentleman will realise when he reads HANSARD tomorrow, he gave a totally inaccurate and irrelevant answer to my question about a particular section in the constitution about discrimination in jobs in the public services. I hope that he will take an opportunity in the future to correct that answer, although I have no doubt that it will make no difference to the unfortunate people in Malta who are discriminated against as a result of his inclusion of that section in the Constitution.
Of course, we all share in the expressions of good will which have gone out. [Laughter.] That laughter shows how sincere those expressions were from the benches opposite; they were largely humbug. We share in the good will expressed to the people of Malta and we wish that it could have been expressed by the Government, including the right hon. Gentleman, in a more tangible form—in the form of giving them a


choice in the conduct of their own affairs, giving them some freedom to choose the sort of Government that they might want. But, of course, the right hon. Gentleman refuses that. He hands them over to this clerical autocracy.
So we send them our good will, without much hope for a particularly happy life for them in the immediate future, at any rate, until Mr. Dom Mintoff becomes their Prime Minister again, as the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) said that undoubtedly he would some day. I am sorry, it was not the hon. Member for Wokingham; it was Count Michael de la Bedoyère, but the hon. Member for Wokingham paid tribute to Mr. Mintoff's ability.
We send our good will to him in the great distress and anguish of mind that he must be suffering as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's bloody-minded-ness, the Archbishop's cunning and Mr. Borg Olivier's general complaisance. We send no good will at all to the hierarchy of Malta, to those prelates who are inflicting this spiritual terror on so many of the unfortunate people of that island, and we hope most earnestly that they will soon be translated to places where they can do less harm, either by the Vatican or by some higher power still.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. W. Yates: Many of us like to hear speeches from the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), but I feel that he has excelled himself tonight in his efforts to suggest the maximum ill will from this House and the country. For that, as a Member of a Parliament which is giving a country independence, he should be thoroughly ashamed. I appreciate his point of view. I know Mr. Mintoff personally. But everything that the hon. Gentleman has said will make Mr. Mintoff's task doubly more difficult. Therefore, he should be ashamed twice over. I am sorry, but I feel very strongly about this, and I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) made a very nice speech and we liked it. We all like to hear what he has to say on these matters. At the end of his speech he reduced the House of Commons to a sort of Labour Party reductio ad absurdum. We know

what the problem is for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and the Opposition. If they really felt strongly about this matter, and were really interested in it, why are they not standing up to support the Labour Party of Malta? Eighty-five votes in the Lobby tonight! If they really feel deeply about a matter concerning the whole of the House of Commons and the country, then that Division was another shame on their party.
I have dealt with the hon. Member, and with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.

Mr. Driberg: I hope that the hon. Member does not think he has dealt with them adequately.

Mr. Yates: I am now going to deal with my right hon. Friend. I appreciate the great difficulties which my right hon. Friend had had to deal with in Malta, and I know now that he desires that, Malta having been given independence, it will make the very best of independence and of the constitution which we have given it. I am sorry to say that in certain respects I do not think the Constitution is all we could have done, had we had a little more time. But I remember this, that once we have given sovereignty to a country there is nothing to stop its people, and there is nothing to stop the Maltese people, from altering the Constitution as they think fit when the time comes.
What I would say, in conclusion, is that I hope that what we have given to the people of Malta in this Constitution will be a good start to the future of the Island of Malta; and if it is not all they desire, they will become free and independent, and may they model their Constitution and their ways in the ways of free discussion—and not in those ways which hon. Members opposite have alleged and because of which I started by attacking hon. Members opposite.
I remind those hon. Members on the other side, and some of my hon. Friends, too, that that way, the way of free discussion, is the true basis of democracy—

Mr. Driberg: Tell Gonzi that.

Mr. Yates: Oh, yes, but he knows a thing or two, and Mr. Mintoff himself has denied that any section of the


Labour Party has been excommunicated, and the Labour Party is quite capable of looking after the independence of Malta and he is looking and seeing what changes can be made in the Constitution capable of putting him and his party in power for the benefit of the people of Malta.
As for the attacks on the Church by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), I do not think that he could ever have given an instance of a personal excommunication for being a member of the Labour Party in Malta.

Mr. Driberg: The hon. Member really does not know much about it, if he thinks that.

Mr. Yates: Go on.

Mr. Driberg: The hon. Member asks for one case. Has he not heard of the interdict? There was a personal interdict passed on all the members of the executive of the Labour Party—an interdict, one of the strongest forms of excommunication—and they were barred from the Sacraments.

Mr. Yates: Personal?

Mr. Driberg: Yes, the whole of the executive of the Malta Labour Party was barred from all the Sacraments. I have said it three time. Cannot the hon. Member understand?

Mr. Yates: I appreciate the hon. Member's point.

Mr. Driberg: It is true. It is fact.

Mr. Yates: I accept it. I am sorry if these things occurred in Malta. They can do no good for the future of the island.

Mr. Driberg: Hear, hear.

Mr. Yates: All I can do is wish Malta a happy future, and hope that the islanders will always look back happily upon their ties with this country.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Mendelson: My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), in his contribution earlier this evening, said, rightly, that although this is the final debate in this House on Malta before the independence of Malta, after independence there will be a good number of occasions on which Malta or

our relations with Malta, will be debated. Therefore, this is an occasion on which one must assess the responsibilities, before the debate is concluded.
The Minister, although in a sitting position, denied some of the allegations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), particularly those relating to his dealing with the House. I would remind the Secretary of State that, if he reads HANSARD tomorrow, he will find that on the important point whether or not he could accept our Amendment he raised his arms at one stage and said, "No. I could not possibly go back on all this." That was the statement he made, as nearly verbatim as possible. That truly gives point to what my hon. Friend had been underlining, that the Secretary of State had adopted a position in which he obviously had entered into arrangements with another Government regardless of what the House might finally do about the arrangements which he had proposed. If he had not, what was the meaning of, "I could not possibly go back on all this"? Till the House had passed this Bill, and sent it on its way to becoming an Act, no arrangement could be finalised. By using a phrase like "I could not possibly go back on all that" the right hon. Gentleman clearly stated that he had entered into binding agreements. Note that the right hon. Gentleman is not contradicting the quotation I am giving. Hon. Members will see in to-morrow's OFFICIAL REPORT exactly what the Secretary of State said.

Mr. M. Foot: The phrase "every treaty is like that" has been used by hon. Members opposite, but that is not to say that every Bill is a treaty. That is not so.

Mr. Mendelson: It has not been argued by an hon. Member opposite that the position is any different from that outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. It was a careless phrase by which the right hon. Gentleman gave away his attitude. He has no right to treat the House of Commons in this manner.
This brings me to another point of even greater importance. There is tonight among the Maltese electorate no real way of assessing how hon. Members of this


House might have looked on this Measure had they been given proper time to consider it. This is not a question of provoking hon. Members on either side; asking whether or not they have read all the documents carefully. What is at stake is something far more important. It was well known to the Secretary of State—and I am making this charge deliberately—that not only during the last two days, but for many weeks, there were considerable sectors of the electorate in Malta who suspected that he was going to rush the Bill through in the last few days of a dying Parliament.
Although the right hon. Gentleman will not wish me to quote detailed evidence, he is better aware than any other hon. Member that representations were made to him within the last eight weeks to this effect; and he cannot deny this. Those representations came to him through various sources from representative sections of the Maltese electorate and he was urged, not only from this but other quarters, not to rush this through in the last days of this Parliament and not to spring it on the House of Commons in such a manner.
I am selecting my words carefully because this is an important occasion. The Secretary of State disregarded all those representations. He knew the method by which this Measure would have to be rushed through the House; and I add to these remarks that it is very doubtful whether, by concluding the Measure in this fashion, he has not done a grave disservice to the best future, from the political and friendship towards this country points of view, of the people of Malta.
I say this because we are at one in. desiring a continuation of the closest possible connection between this country and Malta. My hon. Friends, as much as hon. Members opposite, believe that it is a good thing for us to be giving economic aid to Malta in future. I hope that there will be a majority of people in Malta who will wish to be on friendly relations with us and have arrangements with us, defence and otherwise. It is because I have these future relations at heart that I say again to the Secretary of State and the House that in matters of constitutional government,

where a Constitution is being offered for acceptance, this is the wrong way to begin—and a simple, bare majority is not enough.
It has always been accepted constitutional doctrine in this House that when the Government want to pass a taxation law or Health Service legislation, a bare majority is sufficient, but that, when they want to pass a Constitution, the Government must get the broad agreement of more than three-quarters of the electorate. One must try to get a Constitution that is accept able and satisfactory to others—

Sir P. Agnew: I should like to take the hon. Member up on the point of the Constitution. The Labour Government forced through the Parliament Bill without having anything like three-quarters of the House behind them. They had the whole Opposition solidly against them.

Mr. Mendelson: It has been proved time and again that the feeling was in favour of the abolition of the university seats. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), when asked later to consider that matter, agreed that there was then a broad feeling in the country that these seats should not be restored. That is quite the wrong example for the hon. Gentleman to use against me. It is generally agreed, however, that, particularly where a Constitution is being worked out jointly by a British statesman and a representative of the Government in Malta, any suggestion that we do not care whether there is broad agreement in Malta itself on the constitution is a dangerous way to start that country on a new political career.
It is quite clear that there is every possibility that because of this false start considerable sections of the Maltese electorate will not regard this new Constitution as their charter for future self-government, but something that has been imposed on them. There is no denying that, and it does not depend on what we say here. We read in The Times today quotations showing the first reactions of newspapers representing significant sections of the Maltese electorate, which prove conclusively that it is not in the best interests of either of the major political parties in Malta that the leader of one of them has to go


back with an agreement that has not had the consultative approval, or any approval, of any other major political party.
The basis of constitutional democratic government is the broad approval of the basic constitutional arrangements by the major parties in the State, particularly the two major parties—the Government and the potential Government. In acting in this way the right hon. Gentleman has acted like a Minister with a majority behind him, but that majority is no more significant in the context of this debate than is the one-sided agreement he has concluded with one partner in the political set-up in Malta in recent weeks.
Further, the right hon. Gentleman has not advanced any convincing argument for not accepting our idea of allowing opinion about the Constitution to crystallise. In defence, the right hon. Gentleman offered only one argument. He said, "If I were to be convinced that more agreement could be achieved during the next 16 or 20 weeks, I would be prepared to consider the proposition." Of course, a few minutes later he said that he could not possibly go back on all this, which rather spoilt that earlier point. But, ignoring that—this is not the time for debating points—and taking the argument quite seriously, he cannot say that the fact that there might be further agreement cannot be decisive in rushing through this new Constitution and the Bill like this.
The Maltese people, all of them, have a right to a period in which to show their reactions to this new Constitution. It is irrelevant whether the right hon. Gentleman in his wisdom is right or wrong in thinking that no further agreement will be reached. He is not the decisive party in this. What is far more important is that the people of Malta should be given an opportunity to show their reactions to the new proposals. That opportunity has never been given.
It is no good telling the House of Commons that many of the proposals contained in this new Constitution have already been discussed throughout Malta, and in London, and by various commissions round the table. That is an irrelevant argument. For the first time we have a new political fact, namely, that from this evening onwards this Bill will have been passed by the House of

Commons, and will be on its way. The Maltese people are entitled to show their reaction to this new political fact, but by the method which he has deliberately adopted the right hon. Gentleman has denied them that opportunity.
As my hon. Friends have shown, there are many deeply worrying things about this Constitution, but in view of the relations between this country and Malta over a long period, the heroic past of the people of the island and the close connections between us, we can look into the future only in the hope that somehow, out of the discussions now going on in Malta, policies might develop which will allow free and democratic government in that country.
However much we may worry about the wrong way in which we have gone about this business, in rushing the Bill and in denying to the Maltese people the opportunity to react to it, we can only say to the people of Malta that we hope that they will conduct their political discussions and arguments in such a way as to allow us in this House to say, "There are many people over there who do not agree with what is being done, but they are showing that they themselves are very much concerned to produce a peaceful democratic future for their country."
I can well understand how many of them must feel and how hon. Members here would feel if anybody had suggested imposing a constitution on them. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he cannot see any possibility of agreement. It may sound convincing to him, but the leaders of the political parties in Malta will not look at the problem in the same way. His conviction that no political agreement can be reached will sound hollow in their ears. The warning given by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is realistic. There may be grave dangers ahead. The responsibility for them will rest on the shoulders of the right hon. Gentleman and the Cabinet who supported him and his way of going about this matter. I hope that the dangers will not materialise and that ways will be found to give expression to the feelings of the people of Malta.
There will be many grave difficulties under this Constitution in finding those ways without many bitter struggles


among the Maltese people. It would have been a right and proper task of the House of Commons to find ways and means of making the Constitution a basis for the future development of Malta which would have made the struggle less bitter and would have created a proper atmosphere at the start. The failure to do this is the gravamen of my charge against the right hon. Gentleman. This is the responsibility which he will have to bear and of which we shall remind him in due time.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — YORKSHIRE OUSE AND HULL RIVER AUTHORITY

10.59 p.m.

Commander Harry Pursey: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Yorkshire Ouse and Hull River Authority Constitution Order 1964 (S.I., 1964, No. 893), dated 18th June 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th June, be annulled.
I move the Motion, which is supported by the three hon. Members who represent Hull and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Longbottom), to protest on behalf of Hull and the East Riding against the inequitable and incredible apportionment by the Minister of the 23 local authority members to this new Authority. Under the Order, East Riding is to have only one member while Leeds and Sheffield are to have three members each, twice the number of 1½ for Kingston upon Hull, which is to share a joint member with York.
I am pleased to see the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. Coulson) and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Longbottom) here tonight. Unfortunately, through circumstances over which we had no control, instead of having 1½ hours for our debate we are limited to little more than half an hour—scarcely more than the time devoted to an Adjournment debate.
I served on the Standing Committee which considered the Water Resources Act, 1963. I attended all 17 sittings and perhaps made a contribution, although

the Joint Parliamentary Secretary may not wish me to refer to the numerous controversies and to my verbal duels with him and the Minister.
The functions of the Yorkshire Water Authority will be the new functions of conservation and management of water resources and the transferred functions—land drainage, including fisheries and river pollution—formerly exercised by the two river boards in the area. The Authority is to consist of 45 members, 22 of them with special background, appointed by Ministers, and 23 appointed by the local authorities.
The principle of the apportionment of the membership is for the Minister to decide initially the number of ministerial appointments and then to add one to that number over the local authority number in order to provide a majority of one. There have been two shots at this in Yorkshire. On 26th March, the membership for land drainage and industry was five and three respectively, but, in the Order we are now discussing, this is to be increased to six and four respectively. That is an increase in the ministerial appointments and also necessitates an increase in the local authority membership by two, bringing total membership to 45.
My main concern is the improper apportionment by the Minister of the 23 local authority members. Section 7 (2) of the Act says:
The number of local authority members … shall be determined by the Ministers having regard to the appropriate penny rate product. … 
The original proposal was for 21 local authority members. Leeds and Sheffield were to have two each, Bradford and Hull were to have 1½ and Hull was to share its half man, or perhaps its half woman, with York. Hull protested and pleaded for two members, and the Minister replied:
Leeds and Sheffield each have an appropriate product above that necessary to entitle them to two members each but not enough for three each.
This Order was laid on 18th June. It increases the ministerial appointments by two. Consequently, as I have pointed out, the local authority membership is increased by two. Every unbiased person would have assumed that, with two extra local authority members, the opportunity would be taken to apply common


sense to the previous arithmetical apportionment and give one of these two additional members to be divided between Hull and York and, also, that Bradford's 1½ would be reconsidered. This was not done, however.
The result is that both Leeds and Sheffield, already in a favoured position with two members each, have their membership increased to three, while both Bradford and Hull remain with their original 1½ and York will also still have only a. half, sharing one member with Hull. This is an incredible failure of common sense. The Minister's decimal arithmetic is also wrong. With a total appropriate 1d. rate product for the Authority of £791,588 for 23 members, the amount is £34,417 per member.
The number of members per 1d. rate product is: Leeds, 2·62; Sheffield, 2·53; Hull. 1·54 and York, 0·53. The Minister insists that the allocation must be restricted to the 1d. rate product, but what is the result? Leeds gets an extra, third, member for ·62 of a 1d. rate product and Sheffield for only ·53, while Hull is refused a half member for ·54 as against Sheffield's ·53 for one, and York is also refused a half member for ·53 for which Sheffield gets an extra, third, member. However much the Parliamentary Secretary may shrug off this argument, the position is that Sheffield and Leeds are now to have three members each and Hull only one and a half, which is incredible and untenable.
In a letter of 14th May, the Minister said that he was of the opinion that the apportionment was fair and proper. If two members for Leeds and Sheffield was fair and proper on 14th May, the present apportionment, made only a month later on 18th June, is obviously unfair and improper. The number of Leeds and Sheffield members should have remained the same. I say nothing about the second extra member, except that Bradford might well have been considered, but the first extra member should have been apportioned half to Hull and half to York, to give York one member and Hull two, the same as Leeds and Sheffield. Why not?
I want now to say a few words about the Minister's questionable decision that Hull and York should share a member. I am pro rather than anti-York, and

I hope that the hon. Member for York will be able to voice the views of his constituents. York is nearly 40 miles from Hull and the two cities have nothing in common for the purposes of the Water Resources Act. Hull's water interests are confined to the East Riding, whereas York's interests are essentially linked to the River Ouse. Their water resources are completely divorced geographically and geologically by the Yorkshire Wolds, and Hull has a public water supply whereas York has company water. It will, therefore, be quite impracticable for a joint Hull-York member adequately to represent the unrelated interests of both cities.
York is much nearer to and has more in common with Leeds than Hull, and both York and Leeds are in the same present river board area. Any question of York's sharing a member should, therefore, be considered in connection with Leeds and the apportionment of its third member, or with the West Riding, which has eight members, and certainly not with Hull which has only one and a half members. With Leeds entitled to 2·62 and York ·53, the total is 3·15 members. Thus, the two are entitled to only three members, namely, Leeds two and a joint member with York.
I will now say a brief word about the apportionment of local authority members to the three Riding County Councils. This is quite incredible. West Riding has eight, North Riding one and East Riding one. Again, this may be arithmetical, but it is not common sense. Not only are Leeds and Sheffield favoured with three members each, but their Riding with eight to the other Ridings' one each gives a block vote of 14, or nearly two-thirds of the local authority representation of 23 members, as compared with only 2½ for East Riding and Hull together. This makes nonsense of the 1d. rate product apportionment.
There are further water resources factors, some of them a long distance outside the city, which are the responsibility of Hull Council. Time will permit me to list only two. Hull's water undertaking supplies one quarter of the East Riding. There are nearly 200,000 acres outside the city boundary, and the Corporation may well have to take water


from Farndale, 60 miles away in the North Riding.
Secondly, the new Hemphole abstraction works are 12 miles from the city, and Hull is responsible for river levels for a further 6 miles upstream, making a total river length of 18 miles. No other constituent council of this Authority has such heavy responsibilities in excess of its 1d. rate product functions; and, consequently, these should be taken into account when considering an additional half—or even two-quarters—of a member for Hull.
To sum up, there is no question but that if Hull and the East Riding are joint partners, as they ought to be, they should have three local authority members—two for Hull and one for the Riding—for the reasons which I have given. Failing that combination, Hull should have its one and a half members increased to two.
There is also no question but that Hull should receive favourable consideration for the Ministerial appointment of special background members, with which I have no time to deal. Admittedly, the Minister has informed me that consideration is to be given to the question of a water undertaking member, but there are also strong arguments for consideration of a drainage and sewerage system, and particularly, as a low lying port, of prevention of flooding and sea inundation, for the reasons that I have given.
One of the most important tasks for this authority will be the disposal of the £¾ million 1d. rate product and applications for Government grants. Obviously charity will begin at home, and Hull and the East Riding are likely to be left to fight alone the serious North Sea intrusions on their Yorkshire coast and river lines.
I hope that in the short time at my disposal I have said enough to put the Rivers Humber and Hull, the City of Hull, and the East Riding on the maps of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, where they have not been before, for the purposes of water conservation, and in conspicuous colouring on the maps of this new Yorkshire River Authority.
It is also to be hoped that this area for which I have spoken will receive the consideration and attention which it deserves, not only because of its local importance but also because of its national importance.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Charles Longbottom: I am pleased to support the plea made by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey), and I ask my hon. Friend to look again at this Order.
As my hon. Friend knows, York Corporation has taken up this whole question with the Minister. I submit that the Minister's view that the York representation should be based on a rate income, and on no other considerations, is wrong. York Corporation has very special interests as trustees of the Ouse navigation. As such, it is responsible for the navigation of 42½ miles of the River Ouse. I appreciate that as navigation authority it will be represented by two members on this Authority, but these will be nominated by the Minister after consultation with the Authority, the British Transport Docks Board, and the British Waterways Board, and, clearly, York City Council will not have the option of selecting who should go on the river authority.
The special interest of York Corporation which I want my hon. Friend to bear in mind is the weir which the trustees maintain at Naburn. This provides a considerable reservoir of water for the York Waterworks Company, which supplies York and vast areas around the city. Without the weir, York Waterworks Company's supply would be in jeopardy, and the new Authority's responsibility for the conservation of water made much more difficult.
I therefore submit that York should be represented by a member of its own on this Authority. This will be of value to the Authority in developing co-operation and close links between it and the navigation authority which will be for the benefit of this whole area.
The York City Council has always taken its responsibilities seriously, irrespective of party allegiance. For many years we have had Alderman Ward as the council's representative on the


Authority. He is a man of great experience and many years' service, and is of great: benefit to the Authority. If York is not to have this close representation, its only influence will be by remote control. I submit that that is wrong, for it is responsible, navigation-wise, for 42½ miles of river. It has a great historical background on the banks of the River Ouse.
I hope that my hon. Friend will look at this matter again.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Michael Coulson: It is not very often that I agree with the views of the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey), but that happens to be the happy position in which T am this evening. As I can speak for only a few minutes in order to allow my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary time to reply adequately, I shall not go over any of the grounds covered by the hon. and gallant Member.
The arguments likely to be advanced by my hon. Friend tonight are probably the same as or very similar to those which he used on 9th July, when replying to the Prayer which sought to annul the River Severn Authority Constitution Order. I have read carefully what he said on that occasion. I appreciate that the idea behind this Order is that the proposed constitution should be of a corporate body. In other words, it will be not merely a collection of delegates acting in a representative capacity, but a created body which as a whole represents the views of the area of the river board. This, obviously, is very desirable, but what might be desirable in theory is, in plain fact, that the local authority representatives, to carry out their functions properly, must be capable of representing. If that were not the case there would be no argument for having representatives; a body of fair-minded experts could do the job as well as a representative body.
One cannot ignore the fact that representatives are there as representatives because they are presumed to have special knowledge of the individual areas they represent. As the hon. and gallant Member pointed out, Hull has special problems which cannot be understood by someone not closely connected with the

city and carefully briefed on its problems. I do not know what sort of appointments will be made, but assume that they are for three years. In one of the three years Hull might be represented by two members and York might be virtually disfranchised. In another year Hull might be represented by one Member and York providing the other member, who could not adequately represent the views of Hull. We might have a member half representative of Hull and half representative of York and representing conflicting interests. That would present great problems.
York and Hull are very great historic cities with proud records and great aspirations. So that both may be adequately represented, I ask my hon. Friend to consider withdrawing this Order and revising it so that each separate area can have representation.

11.20 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): It may help if I run quickly through the background of the Order to which the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) has referred.,
As he reminded the House, the first operation here is to determine the numbers of the special Ministerial appointees who will provide the skills and experiences which are laid down in Sections 6 and 8 of the Act. Section 8 lays down that in the case of this river authority there shall be a member of the National Coal Board. Section 8(3) provides that where a river authority, in comparison with other river authorities may have an important effect on navigational functions, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport may appoint special representatives in respect of that interest. Section 6 lays down that at least one member with qualification for drainage, fisheries, agriculture, industry and water supply, shall be appointed either by my right hon. Friend or by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to each river authority.
As the hon. and gallant Member said, the only sensible way in which we can start the exercise is to try to determine the number of these Ministerial appointees. As he reminded the House, we


have had two shots at this, as we have had two shots at most of the river authorities. Having got out a list agreed between my right hon. Friends, it is a statutory requirement to consult the various interests concerned. In this case we started with the Coal Board representative, two navigation members, five land drainage members, three for fisheries, two for agriculture, four for public water supply and three for industry, making 20, and, therefore, requiring a total of 21 local authority members in order to balance the appointees and to give the local authorities a majority of one.
As a result of representations from the various bodies consulted, we decided to increase the land drainage members by one and the industrial members by one. We therefore arrive at 22 appointed members and 23 local authority members which makes a total of 45. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member, however, that, having revised the total numbers, one automatically has to do different sums. Whereas under the first proposal we had an arithmetical situation in which one member represented £37,694 of appropriate product of a 1d. rate, the revised figure is £34,417.
It is wrong for him to say that it follows, if two members each for Sheffield and Leeds were adequate and just in the first proposal, they are adequate and just now, because we are dealing with a different factor when we have a different total number. This is the place at which the hon. and gallant Member has gone wrong with his calculations. He said that we should have given the extra members to Hull and York, and possibly to Bradford. Had we had two members each for Bradford and Hull, leaving also two members for Leeds and Sheffield, we should have had a situation in Bradford and Hull where there was one member for approximately £26,000 of appropriate 1d. rate product, while in Leeds and Sheffield the figure would have been about £44,000. It is obvious that we should have had a considerable over-representation for Bradford and Hull compared with Leeds and Sheffield.
By far the fairest way of doing it on an arithmetical calculation was to increase the membership for Leeds and Sheffield and to leave the representation of Hull at one, with another one shared with York. My hon. Friends the Members

for York (Mr. Longbottom) and Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. Coulson) made the point that they would wish to consider the local authority members as representatives. It is of some interest to point out that had we taken the view that every local authority in the two classes—county councils and county boroughs—should have a representative, we should have had 83 local authority members and the total membership of the Authority would be 165.
This would absorb a very large proportion of the farmers and fishermen in the neighbourhood to make the figures balance. Even on the more modest proposal of giving a full member to York, if the membership of other local authorities were made up in proportion we should have a river authority with 43 local authority members, and a total membership of 85. Again, if we had two for Hull, then on the same arithmetical calculation we should have had 59. So I think that my hon. Friend and the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will agree that some of the arguments if carried to any degree of logical conclusion, would produce the most absurd results from the point of view of carrying out the administrative functions conferred upon the authorities. However, I agree with the hon. and gallant Member that Hull has certain functions in addition to those which some other kinds of borough have. But it is clearly laid down in the Act that the water supply interests should be catered for separately in the Ministerial appointments. The local authority representation is there as representing the people on whom the precepts are made. It is in that capacity that they are there, and it is, therefore, entirely logical that their representation should be based on the product of the 1d. rate.
The point has also been made that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North was wrong in putting this forward as the sole criterion, but it is clearly specified in the Act that this is to be the basis of the distribution of the local authority members and I would also remind the hon. and gallant Member that it is also clearly laid down in the Act that the two types of local authorities—county councils and county boroughs—are to be considered separately for this purpose. It is no part of the Ministers' power to say that the county council ought to


share a member with a county borough and, equally, the fact that the total number of representatives in the West Riding or the East Riding does add up to a certain figure, is something which is entirely irrelevant for the purposes of the Authority. What we are concerned with is a distribution on the basis of the 1d. rate product for county councils on the one hand, and for county boroughs on the other. The former have 11 members, and the county boroughs have 12, although arithmetically, the latter are entitled to 11·6 so that, again arithmetically, the county boroughs have slightly higher representation.
So far as his figures are concerned, I do not disagree with the sums which the hon. and gallant Member has done, but they have been done on the assumption that one can draw conclusions from the first proposal and then apply them to the second, when, in fact, the arithmetical results are quite different. The Leeds and Sheffield entitlements work out at 2·62 and 2·53 respectively, but Hull is entitled to 1·54 and York ·53; so that, if extra members had been given to Hull or York or, for that matter, to Bradford, then one would most certainly have under-represented Leeds and Sheffield in proportion.
It so happens that Leeds and Sheffield together are slightly over-represented, but that is inevitable when one is faced with a sum of the sort with which we are concerned. However, I assure the hon. and gallant Member that it has been worked out only with a view to showing the utmost fairness, and the Act enjoins and, indeed, provides that we must pay attention to the 1d. rate product of the local authority members.

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — RAILWAYS, NORTH-WEST

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: I am grateful for this opportunity to say a word about railway closures in the North-West for it is a subject which has brought very acute and very personal worry to many thousands of my constituents and to people in neighbouring constituencies in the North-West, particularly those of my hon. Friends the Members for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Bingham), Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) and Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who have been so active in representing the views of users. I hope that this debate may help to bring some degree of reassurance to many of the people concerned.
The lines under consideration fall into two distinct categories. There are a considerable number, on which the traffic is light. Of course, even those are of considerable importance to the people who use them, but in these cases the only issue is personal hardship. I accept that the Transport Users' Consultative Committees provide a very suitable procedure for examining that aspect and I do not wish to say any more about them now.
What I want to speak about are the other lines, the lines carrying 50,000 passengers and upwards a week, the lines which are really an integral part of the life of the area, which are, indeed, in many cases the focal point around which the area has grown up. It is noticeable that there are several of these lines on the list of closures for the North-West.
A classic example of what I have in mind is the Southport to Liverpool line. It is a short line carrying upwards of 200,000 passengers a week. Some of these are visitors. They, too, are an essential part of the life of the area. But I am even more concerned with the majority, the people for whom this line is an integral and essential part of the pattern of their lives. I mean the people who use it daily to go to and from their work, the school children


who use it daily to go to and from school, the university students, the housewives, the shoppers and people visiting relatives and so on.
Upwards of 7,000 of my constituents use it every weekday. It is not difficult to imagine their surprise and dismay when they learned that this line was under consideration. I share that surprise and dismay, and it is some measure of the feelings of my constituents that when recently Conservative councillors undertook to raise a petition some 10,000 persons added their signatures to it within a matter of a very few weeks.
I appreciate, of course, that the question of individual hardship will receive most careful consideration by the T.U.C.C. should the matter ever reach that stage. The point I want to stress is that lines like these raise far wider questions than the question of individual hardship, questions quite outside the narrow limits to which the T.U.C.C.s must by law confine themselves.
The area along the coast from Liverpool to Southport has grown up along that line. It is the backbone of the area. That development is continuing. It is wholly desirable that it should continue. It is only by encouraging development of this kind that one can avoid increasing the density in the cities while at the same time getting people out into the open air and, as is so important in these times of increasing leisure, into areas where there are ample facilities for leisure.
No wonder that there is substantial building going on in the area, in Crosby, in Formby, in Ainsdale, all centred on the line. It is plain common sense and it is what people want, and for both these reasons we should cater for it. It also produces the result that we are able to visualise the transport needs for some long time ahead. We have the certain knowledge that what we have to plan for is the task of getting a lot of people into and out of Liverpool in the shortest possible time and in ever-increasing numbers.
What transport is necessary to do that? One must have vehicles with high carrying capacity capable of travelling at high density, at high speed and to a schedule. These are the very characteristics which Dr. Beeching singled out as being the advantages enjoyed by the railways over all other means of transport. What folly

it would seem to be to deprive oneself of this means of transport when there is plainly a heavy need for it—a need which will increase. I think that Professor Buchanan has said in effect that it would be madness at this stage to drop any of the existing commuter services into the cities. This is, and must be, especially true of railway services and of the kind of lines in the North-West to which I am referring.
This apparent folly becomes even more obvious when one relates what I have just said to the only possible alternatives—private motor cars and buses. It is not everybody who has got a motor car, so some would not have the option. But if any significant proportion of those who had the option chose to use their motor cars, there would be absolute chaos for them—and for those who are already using their motor cars, for one must consider them as well. There are many in the area who already use their motor cars, probably in many cases because they have not got a railway. In all conscience they have trouble enough in getting through into the city now. If any significant numbers were to be added to them, both the additional numbers and the existing users would between them create congestion beyond belief.
That leaves the buses. There are special difficulties in the running of bus services, in view of the layout of the roads between Southport and Liverpool, but I want to stick to rather wider considerations. It seems obvious to me that to contemplate carrying 200,000 or more passengers a week by bus is a very large undertaking by any standard. It must necessarily involve great capital expenditure and take a long time to implement. When one considers that in addition, it would seem that the bus company would be presented with precisely the same dilemma as that experienced by the railway, which is the reason why the railway wishes to close its line, namely that it would have to have large stocks of vehicles and large staffs which would be used to capacity only for two comparatively short periods during the day, it seems difficult to believe that such an undertaking can be a practicable possibility.
One must, of course, also bear in mind against these considerations the question of the losses experienced on the


railway at the moment. I want to make clear that I understand Dr. Beeching's point of view. If a railway is to be kept open at public expense, this is a matter for the Government, but I do suggest that this may very well be one of the cases to which Dr. Beeching referred in his Report, where it may be
cheaper to subsidise the railways than to bear the other cost burdens which may arise if they are closed".
If this line were closed, there would be immense losses in terms of time and inconvenience, and the mind boggles at the cost of the road improvements and the increased parking facilities which would obviously be necessary to keep the increased traffic moving at all and to provide a parking space when a traveller finally made a voluntary stop.
Nor do I think we are asking for anyone to pay for our railways. A lot of people live along this line and they pay a great deal in taxes. They are certainly not getting back any more than their share of the taxes which go to meet the railway deficits.
When one considers these factors, even thus briefly, it would seem as obvious as anything can be that it would be the height of folly to close such a line. Small wonder that users have expressed their views in graphic terms, and I agree with them. I have, as a cautious lawyer, expressed the view that it would be lunacy to close this line. I repeat that view. I have reassured my constituents, of course, by telling them that I know that the Minister is not a lunatic and therefore that T am confident that he will not close the line. I have done that because I am confident that the Minister will give the most serious consideration to the points I have mentioned and confident that he will conclude that they amount to an overwhelming case for keeping this and similar lines open.
My concern is with the timing. I do not doubt that in reply to this debate the Minister will assure me and my constituents and other rail users that all these points will be considered very carefully at the appropriate time. I am sure he will. I hope he will. I conclude by asking him to consider again what is the appropriate time for him to consider them. The kind of points I have been mentioning must be investigated at some time, and by him, not by the T.U.C.C.s.

I want him to begin the investigating of them now. I believe that if he does so he will find that there are obvious and overwhelming reasons for saying that this line should not close.
I venture to express the view that in the case of a line like this people ought not to be kept in a state of suspense, and ought not to be subjected to the worry, the trouble and the expense of a T.U.C.C. hearing, and nor should the T.U.C.C, which has already more than enough to do, be put to this task, unless it is really unavoidable. I appreciate that the Minister may say that he feels that he must stick to the 1962 procedure in all cases, because if he departs from it in any particular case he may be asked to do so in all cases. Should he say that, may I offer in advance three comments to the contrary?
First, there are in fact very few other cases comparable to the commuter lines in the North-West. Secondly, in my view, all commuter lines ought in any event to be considered as being in a quite different category from the others. Thirdly, though I appreciate that there is some danger that the Minister may find himself in that difficulty, I have no doubt that he is quite strong enough to deal with it, if it arises, and I hope that he will feel that it would be both wrong and unnecessary to keep many thousands in a state of uncertainty and worry in order to safeguard himself against a possible difficulty which might well not arise, and which he could well deal with if it did arise.
The Minister's decision announced today not to allow the Manchester-Buxton line to close will give much pleasure and encouragement to many. It is very good to find that in a case like this the T.U.C.C. has adapted itself as readily to the urgency of the situation and has adopted a wholly practical course, and it is very good to find that the Minister has responded so speedily to that sense of urgency. Both are to be warmly congratulated.
There is great similarity between the case of the Southport-Liverpool line and the Manchester-Buxton line. If there be any significant difference—I am sure my hon. Friends will agree with me on this—it is that the numbers involved are far greater in the case of the Southport-Liverpool line and thus


involve even more hardship and more difficulty than in the Buxton case.
I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of practical men of the calibre of Dr. Beeching and my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to find a short cut in the case of the Liverpool-Southport line. It may be that, now that we have a yardstick, Dr. Beeching may feel, following the indications given in the Buxton case, that the Southport line might be withdrawn from the list. Alternatively, my right hon. Friend may feel he could follow the example set by the T.U.C.C. in the Buxton case, and, just as the T.U.C.C. felt it desirable to submit as a matter of urgency an interim report on hardship without taking time to go into every detail of hardship, so I would suggest that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend might feel it right now to ask the Steering Committee, which they have appointed to consider the transport problems on Merseyside and which has been considering this problem for two years, to submit as a matter of urgency an interim report on the kind of considerations which are the considerations which must be dealt with by him and not by the T.U.C.C, namely, considerations of the kind to which I have endeavoured to draw attention this evening.
I have put forward some suggestions on how a short cut might be achieved. In fact, of course, I do not mind how it is done, but I do ask the Parliamentary Secretary and all concerned to consider, as practical men, whether it really is impossible to put us out of our misery. I urge them to do it now and to remove the uncertainty. Do not put us through the hoop any further. Find a way of giving us at an early date the decision which those of us who have considered the matter in detail feel is inevitable in the long run, and let us now get on with our lives and our plans for the area.

11.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I have answered a great many Adjournment debates on railway closures in the last year and although I think I have said everything that can be said, since my hon. and learned

Friend's adjournment is linked specifically to the North-West, I hope that this debate will receive wide publicity in that area and will enable people there not only to learn of the activities of my hon. and learned Friend in their interest, but, what is perhaps more important from my point of view, to understand the principles and procedure which govern railway closure proposals and realise that they are designed to safeguard particular interests, to which my hon. and learned Friend refered, as well as to reach a decision which is in the best national interest.
To go back to the start, the aim of the Report on the Reshaping of British Railways was to fit the railways to do the tasks for which they are best suited and to leave to other forms of transport tasks which they can do much better and more economically than the railways. The heavy deficit on the system is a burden to the taxpayers and a waste of resources which the country really cannot afford. One-third of the system is carrying less than 1 per cent. of the total passenger traffic and it is against this background that passenger closures must be examined.
What is always forgotten is that although the railways deficit is down this year by £22 million, the cost still amounts to about 6d. in the Income Tax. It does not seem right that all this money should be used to keep little used railway lines open. My hon. and learned Friend divided the lines in his area into two categories, those that are important and those that are not. We are always coming across this sort of division. Other people's lines are usually expendible, but for our own it is nearly always possible to find good reason for their retention.

Mr. Percival: I did not intend to give that impression. I meant to divide the railway lines in my constituency as between the little used and the heavily used, remembering that both are important to their users.

Mr. Galbraith: To be fair, I concede that some rail closure proposals do present difficulties, and this is especially true of the proposals affecting large conurbations, which are of particular interest to my hon. and learned Friend. He recognises that there may well be a case


for closing unremunerative lines carrying only a handful of people, but he believes that some lines form an integral part of the economy of the area and that these should be retained. I say "integral" because that was the adjective he used. As an example, he quoted the Liverpool-Southport line.
I will say something about our procedure for dealing with these sorts of cases. Before the Railways Board can proceed with any passenger closure, it must first of all publish a formal notice of its proposal under Section 56 of the Transport Act, 1962. This brings the statutory processes into operation; users have a right to object to the proposal once it is published. And, if they do object, the closure cannot take effect until there has been a public hearing, and unless my right hon. Friend gives his consent.
The Transport Users' Consultative Committee hears the objections, and it reports to my hon. Friend on the hardship, if any, that it considers the closure would cause. My right hon. Friend carefully considers what the T.U.C.C. has to say on hardship, but I cannot emphasise too strongly that hardship is not the only aspect that he considers. There are many other issues—and very important ones, too—which must be weighed up before any closure proposal can be decided.
My right hon. Friend goes to great lengths to ensure that he has all the information he needs to consider the wide issues, and this may involve defence considerations, housing needs—to which my hon. and learned Friend referred—industrial development, tourist possibilities, as well, naturally, as the state of the roads and the amount of traffic on them. My right hon. Friend receives representations from local authorities and other bodies on these sorts of subjects, and to help him reach a decision he consults his colleagues whose responsibilities may be affected—for example, the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade and the Minister of Housing and Local Government. If, therefore, a passenger service is in fact an integral part of the economy of the area, my hon. Friend can rest assured that this will be brought to light as the result of the close study we make in this way of all opposed closure proposals.
I should now like to turn to the Liverpool-Southport case, and straight away let me say that I fully appreciate my hon. and learned Friend's concern in the matter, and I have sympathy for his constituents and, indeed, for all other hon. Members, of whom I see another in the House, who are interested in the matter. But I must confess that I think their concern a little premature.
All the Railways Board has so far done is to include the Liverpool-Southport line in its Reshaping Report as one it plans to close. Nothing more definite than that has been done so far. If the Board does decide to go ahead with this proposal, it still has to publish a formal notice under Section 56 of the Act, and issue advertisements in the Press and, of course, this is something it has not yet done. Until it has published a formal notice, the statutory processes cannot begin. If the notice is published, and opposed, the elaborate procedure I have described, with the public hearing of objections and a ministerial decision, have to be carried out first of all before the closure can take place.
My hon. and learned Friend asked why my right hon. Friend could not take a decision right away, and inferred that this was a perfectly clear case on which to give a decision. I am afraid that there are two objections to doing what might be described as "jumping the gun" in this way. In the first place, to people who think a line should not be closed, the case for retention is always clearer, but my right hon. Friend has to take a rather more dispassionate view. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, until there is a published and opposed notice under Section 56 of the Act, my right hon. Friend's statutory responsibility does not begin. At the moment, as my hon. and learned Friend knows, there is no Section 56 proposal before my right hon. Friend with regard to the Liverpool-Southport line, so that he has no locus, and there is nothing he can do or say.
It might then be asked why cannot an immediate decision be given once a Section 56 notice is published, without going through all the laborious T.U.C.C. procedure. The reason my right hon. Friend cannot decide in advance whether a service should be closed or not is that the


procedure laid down by Parliament must be followed through, and all the evidence on matters other than hardship has to be properly assembled. For example, the evidence to the T.U.C.C. will often give comparable times by bus and road but it may be possible by improving the road to reduce the times and thus reduce the hardship. Alternatively it may be possible to alter the route and so preserve the basic structure of the railway service.
A very interesting example of this was the Stranraer lines which the railways wanted to close as they were losing over £300,000 a year. As a result of consideration following the T.U.C.C.'s report it was found possible to re-route the trains in such a way as to provide a service from Stranraer to Glasgow and to London, both of which would have been lost if the railways' proposal had been accepted, and still save £240,000 a year, that is the bulk of the money. This is the sort of solution which my right hon. Friend could not possibly have reached without going through the laborious T.U.C.C. procedure and the interdepartmental investigation following on from it.
I must stress that a snap decision of the sort that my hon. and learned Friend suggests is not possible. My right hon. Friend must know about numbers, times and alternatives, and this he learns from the T.U.C.C. He must also know in the light of these facts the effect on roads, industry, and development and this is something he cannot begin to consider until the basic facts have been brought out at the T.U.C.C. My right hon. Friend's concern in all these cases is to ensure that he has sufficient evidence to enable him to reach a proper decision. He does not want to come to a quick decision merely for the sake of quickness. He wants to reach the right decision and it depends entirely on the nature of the case what evidence he calls for to ensure that the pros and cons are looked into exactly and as fairly as possible.
I assure my hon. Friend that this will apply to the Liverpool—Southport line just as much as to any line that comes before my right hon. Friend for decision. As I see each proposal personally before it reaches my right hon. Friend, I assure my hon. and learned Friend that every one of them is subjected to the same

exhaustive and careful scrutiny. In case, however, that my hon. and learned Friend is in any doubt about the effectiveness of our examination I should like to quote a few examples from decisions already announced to illustrate the detailed care that is taken.
My right hon. Friend in many cases has made his consent conditional upon the provision of extra bus services, and some consents include the requirement for limited stops to provide a speedier bus journey. The Southport-Preston closure is a good example of what I mean. Sometimes the bus is re-routed to bring it nearer to the station, as in the case of the two closures affecting the Carlisle line. Where additional services are required, for example the Wigan-Glazebrook line, they must be in operation before the closure takes place and must be kept on as long as my right hon. Friend considers necessary.
Then there is the condition of the roads. In the Alston-Haltwhistle line there was a good case for closure but the road could not carry the buses and could not be made to carry them except at excessive and prohibitive cost, and for that reason the line was kept open. Sometimes it is not so much the condition of the road as the amount of traffic on it that affects my right hon. Friend's decision. A good example of this is the Cardiff-Coryton line. This ran across the city in a way that made it impossible for a reasonable bus alternative to be provided. Substantial numbers of people would have had very large increases in travelling time, and for this reason the line was kept open to help commuters. Another example is the Manchester-Buxton line which my right hon. Friend decided to keep open because he did not think that the alternatives would cater satisfactorily and adequately for commuters.
Just the reverse of this are the Glasgow low-level lines losing £300,000 a year which my right hon. Friend decided to close because the new electric blue trains provide an excellent substitute only a short distance away. These two contrasting decisions in great industrial conurbations show that there is no one decision suited to every area. Each case has to be considered on its merits. I


hope that what I have said will be of some help to my hon. Friend and his constituents. At the moment there is absolutely nothing to worry about because the railways still have not made a formal proposal. The very first Adjournment debate we had a year ago was about the Broad Street-Richmond line. Like the Southport line it had not

been formally proposed then and it has not been formally proposed yet—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twelve o'clock.